Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61635
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOhuFvYD8FQw=xbK3hFqi4GYkOvCNzWjuhk2fqwBjKG9n2kuuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOhuFvYD8FQw=xbK3hFqi4GYkOvCNzWjuhk2fqwBjKG9n2kuuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:12:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKZjf5T517=_fmrTRo78y4G8cM8-E1jbXfLcN3Z8H44mBjg9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rafael Dohms <listas@rafaeldohms.com.br>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset in ternary operator
From: alex.aulbach@gmail.com (Alex Aulbach)

Do we really need that as operator? Why not using new functions for
special cases.
Don't see much difference between

$a = $b ?: $c;

and (for example I used "i" for "if")

$a = _i($b, $c);

Just a manner of getting accustomed to it.

A little bit more thinking: This could be implemented directly into
any program/project, so it is a manner of how to use PHP and not of
why it isn't added to the language.

PS: Would it be possible to implement functions like ":?()" or "!?()"
? Currently this is not allowed by syntax.


2012/7/18 Rafael Dohms <listas@rafaeldohms.com.br>:
> $width = $config['width'] ?: 300;
>
> The only reason for this to not work is: it throws a notice if the array
> key is not there (which is the case we are covering anyway)
>
> This is basically because the ternary operator does not do a internal
> implicit isset, only an empty.
>
> Does this seem like a possible improvement we can work on? Anyone
> interested in championing the change?

-- 
Alex Aulbach