Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51872
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.210.42 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
         :cc:content-type;
        b=NTIwRsa1BDa7cNp7afPPlgw4ojosvVxWNWc3Kg/kr0d/hRVLq6xfuVMWm/lD540aWO
         wPHqxfZodKyacXF8L9PR1Q0MU6jlBv+gLcUgEfh7BRf1+kdQECCnR7Ny3oUHUFKZPm8g
         wL9dYBqb2gHIWah0q91Uhij5KEkwVlMA/VmtQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23.C1.24294.9CC43AD4@pb1.pair.com>
References: <4DA26602.6080303@lorenso.com>
	<20110411133657.GK7113@crousti>
	<BANLkTi=Gnb_8xvYgdwZdPmis4g2o5g0r-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA3468E.8000509@sugarcrm.com>
	<23.C1.24294.9CC43AD4@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:10 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTin2jHmm0LyFLVOO08HJ9Fa0vKtQpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Weier O'Phinney" <weierophinney@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier "silent" ... was: Re:
 [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
From: chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com (Chris Stockton)

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
<weierophinney@php.net> wrote:
> On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
>> > I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few
>> > threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common
>> > theme - "I wanna be a lazier coder."

My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I
would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know
that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even
do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in
other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain.
However, you may find 415,000 reasons why this feature could be useful
for developers in [1].

I also really like the <whatevername>($foo['not exists'], $config['not
exists'], $foo, $bar, 'default') function. I personally only usually
need 1 default value but I feel like many people may find uses for
this as well.

In addition I would like to mention that the checking being "isset"
for such a feature would be a very reasonable option, seeing as empty
[2], array_key_exists [3] (7000 uses found only) etc type use cases
are probably going to be a big minority. Most of the time checks done
with empty() seem to be done on known or already isset() checked, I.E.
isset($foo['bar']) && !empty($foo['bar']) anyways.

Just some food for thought,

-Chris

[1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*isset\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search
[2] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*php+.*empty\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search
[3] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*array_key_exists\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search