Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70402
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain chrislondon.co does not designate 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:43:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAjMSDPkyR1WMjMTMKcAoJSADBr+uA5t_9TAtpgLGnKD8BspoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d19f8f84e5d04ec157f55
Subject: [Proposal] Modification to ?: functionality
From: me@chrislondon.co (Chris London)

--089e013d19f8f84e5d04ec157f55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I find in a lot of my code I have ternaries that set default values.  I
also find that I can't use the ?: syntax for one reason and one reason
only. It throws a notice if the value isn't set.

I believe these two statements are functionally equivalent:

$foo = $foo ? $foo : 'default';

$foo = $foo ?: 'default';

I would like to change it so it also checks for isset() so I propose the
following would be functionally equivalent:

$foo = isset($foo) && $foo ? $foo : 'default';

$foo = $foo ?: 'default';

Random addition: what if we also allowed the following shorthand?

$foo ?= 'default';

or possibly:

$foo ?:= 'default';

Thanks everyone,
Chris

--089e013d19f8f84e5d04ec157f55--