Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51914
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 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
         :content-type;
        b=DAcbmVQBlJknbzeI5M4b2ukHZa2p3WU3spupoa26uDfhFvpUzivMdJf1Docb4l5zja
         bebyDg6oN75LMp0qs5nhbfvdkz7jCUmcrGGH5Am4B9WEROCwr/ij85uRGcYa46fAVZVf
         1TCXYVd3gAIxVl6IUyHeOrzepTweZwis+bHgw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DA8E6D9.5080107@yahoo.com.au>
References: <AANLkTiknomAsTrsZ140rWs6CwxJP3UYGUokQbERhDiRp@mail.gmail.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>
	<BANLkTikghRix9VbpHDx+rnCRtnjdjeshmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<718216446.20110408143441@cypressintegrated.com>
	<4DA0E71C.9030008@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=jJTO3qgjN8=3DCKAV88pnvycVsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.vtp8l9jnr8a5bd@localhost>
	<4DA63ED8.4080402@yahoo.com.au>
	<op.vtw5fnjar8a5bd@localhost>
	<BANLkTi=jFJpqEX+8_yiCZbKVkYc1+EhnSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinPUnzXpfj8AVeaUBi1YSgveCzrPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA6F2BC.10706@yahoo.com.au>
	<BANLkTi=4SD2fzwMc5uLquBkHeBmxDRC0DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA6FB03.9040404@yahoo.com.au>
	<BANLkTimiH2vYWEY8JAf0P_GD81AqGmStDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinzDxa8gH08qBggrLzziAVb_oksng@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DA8E6D9.5080107@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:42:11 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=rz3pj2DuXytWxfBA2etdc1YAo-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Development <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d346406e028104a0ff4494
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
From: simpleshot@gmail.com (Adam Richardson)

--001636d346406e028104a0ff4494
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Schmidt
<mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au>wrote:

> There was also my suggestion of a "checked ternary" operator [see my
>> previous email in this thread.] Backwards compatible, practical, and
>> simple.
>>
>
> It doesn't address the main issues of code duplication and nullness
> checking, IMHO, so isn't a contender. Even though it's simple and
> compatible, it is only practical in a handful of cases.
>

I believe describing nullness checking as a "main" issue is a rather strong
assessment.

David's original message and patch (and several of the suggestions in this
thread) speak to the issues with boilerplate code needed to avoid warnings
elicited when accessing a non-existant array key. This is the type of code
that you tend to see out in the wild that David and others have cited as a
pain:

$var = (isset($arr['key'])) ? $arr['key'] : 'empty';

Additionally, it might not be as succinct as you prefer, but surely

$var = $arr['key'] ?? : 'empty';

is a significant improvement over the current means and does in fact remove
redundant code.

Now, perhaps there are other options that are better. This is an interesting
dialogue to follow, and I've enjoyed the reading. However, after viewing the
other proposals thus far, my preference would still be for the checked
ternary operator.

Respectfully,

Adam

-- 
Nephtali:  A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework
http://nephtaliproject.com

--001636d346406e028104a0ff4494--