Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62465
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50381196.4090606@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:43:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <502EBAA4.9090007@gmail.com> <CAH-PCH54ROtaWa6nr6OwDxH7rxtJaaHOa813-NFDMRoN7DFwcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH54ROtaWa6nr6OwDxH7rxtJaaHOa813-NFDMRoN7DFwcg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Combined assignment operator for short ternary
From: krebs.seb@gmail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

Am 24.08.2012 23:11, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com
> <mailto:krebs.seb@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Don't know, how complicated this is (and also someone (not me) must
>     implement it, because I can't :X), but to be in sync with the
>     operators the short ternary operator should be usable in conjunction
>     with the assignment like the other binary operators. Don't know, if
>     anybody understands me :D So here is an example
>
>     // instead of
>     $foo = $foo ?: 'default';
>     // Just
>     $foo ?:= 'default';
>
>
> would this trigger a notice if $foo is not defined?
> if yes, then it would be different from the current behavior of the
> ternary operator.

Couldn't believe it, thus I tested it myself


$ php -a
Interactive mode enabled

<?php
$f = $f ?: 'bar';
PHP Notice:  Undefined variable: f in - on line 2
PHP Stack trace:
PHP   1. {main}() -:0

Notice: Undefined variable: f in - on line 2

Call Stack:
     8.9779     619512   1. {main}() -:0


Don't know, what you are talking about, but the notice _is_ the current 
behaiour and therefore: No difference.


> if no, then I would never use this.
> I mean if I have to set the variable before the check, then I would put
> the check into the assignment.

The main thought about it was

function foo ($bar = null) {
     $bar = $bar ?: 'default';
}


I _always_ use 'null' as default

- If you want to omit a parameter, but want to set one after that, you 
don't need to look whats the default: It's 'null'
- Ive often enough seen something like

function foo ($limit = 10) { /* code */ }
// Somewhere else
function bar ($limit = 50) { /* code */ $foo($limit); /* code */}
// Even somewhere else
bar();

Imagine there are some other methods and functions in between it's quite 
annoying.



>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu