Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51843
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=wdB8imuYo7fbZ61qwJdSzAvfnvLAd44wL5eYO3UUxIivVnKdGaeWuZiMhjgRGXIxQB
         a9hFcFMsMIIYhUhtJjCzCZYuuWmIRMqESWYFFa/R+j7CuzU00bMoSol20i/3C3K09Kcz
         AVXUlYuz7lhdXKWxI+gen0qXySs5b6zAewO8E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=nwij4sfkKnNdM_NP9w2CArK6NHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiknomAsTrsZ140rWs6CwxJP3UYGUokQbERhDiRp@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D950434.3060704@yahoo.com.au>
	<BANLkTinzb5xiD8j7ZXB+cT4EBZY3DF6BYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D9E0543.1080600@lerdorf.com>
	<69.82.36433.EC33E9D4@pb1.pair.com>
	<4D9E34C4.5000406@lerdorf.com>
	<4D9E429B.20503@sugarcrm.com>
	<4D9E96B6.6060401@lerdorf.com>
	<BANLkTi=LvYLaOoGgrzrWfYbQ+t9Wzv_XeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim6ZBWw66rzx_gSvWc9E45EZx2_gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinxG6FtOqa8KzmvgTT1EFfM-6prow@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinsnqGSVTz=XPhCfX95mfeJ_pkhCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=nwij4sfkKnNdM_NP9w2CArK6NHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:54:33 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikghRix9VbpHDx+rnCRtnjdjeshmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
From: mjpelmear@gmail.com (Matt Pelmear)

Hello all,
First post here; been watching for a while though.

IMHO:
1) Implicit isset() checks in ?: would be bad. This would not
"silently improve not-so-well written code"; In fact it would make
not-so-well written code more difficult to debug. I can't count the
number of times I've run across components that are acting oddly
because somebody wrote them to ignore the fact that they're not
receiving some required parameter. At least with the current
functionality of ?: we get a warning. If the collective decision were
to implement this, could it at least have a setting to force it to
function how it does currently?

2) A shorthand assignment operator would be handy. I like the suggestion of=
 ??=3D
where:
$var ??=3D $default;
is shorthand for
if( !isset($var) ) $var =3D $default;
Or, maybe similar to C#
$var =3D $var ?? $default;
(Correct me if I'm using this syntax incorrectly)

This would provide a clean way to set defaults for unset vars but
would make it easy to find blocks of code that are using unset vars
with the ternary operator.


-Matt

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Martin Scotta <martinscotta@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> I just feels that !empty($arr['key']) or isset($arr['key']) do not expres=
s
> the real meaning, instead I would choose to write array_key_exists('key',
> $arr). It may be slower but it clearly express what I meant.
>
> Regarding the operators, I believe they will do more harm than good.
> To check if a variable was already defined is a bad programing habit, the=
se
> operators will encourage that kind of things
>
> In the other hand, the isset check inside the condition ?: would silently
> improve not-so-well written code, and could be a good feature for the lan=
g.
>
> =A0Martin Scotta