Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70409
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C3C2B66B49364965A5ADC16825F43A63@apfelbox.net>
References: <CAAjMSDPkyR1WMjMTMKcAoJSADBr+uA5t_9TAtpgLGnKD8BspoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcGo3hYoKd074mPeXU5O1TnEXherDYghRQeKcamhXassY9acg@mail.gmail.com> <C3C2B66B49364965A5ADC16825F43A63@apfelbox.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:49:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxJSmKG3i8Tb_sz=PG14RPnih5y2k4t=xBbhaxnG16mHjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jannik Zschiesche <hello@apfelbox.net>
Cc: Mats Lindh <mats.lindh@gmail.com>, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349750f0303c04ec1746bd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Proposal] Modification to ?: functionality
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a11349750f0303c04ec1746bd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 26 November 2013 15:32, Jannik Zschiesche <hello@apfelbox.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> Am Dienstag, 26. November 2013 um 16:15 schrieb Mats Lindh:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co(mailto=
:
> me@chrislondon.co)> wrote:
> > > following would be functionally equivalent:
> > >
> > > $foo =3D isset($foo) && $foo ? $foo : 'default';
> > >
> > > $foo =3D $foo ?: 'default';
> >
> > The would break the assumption that a reference to an uninitialized val=
ue
> > would generate a notice, unless explicitly handled in the logic.
> >
> > While I also would like to have something similar to ?: to handle defau=
lt
> > values for array keys, etc., this would change a fundamental assumption
> > that as been in place for many years now. I'm not sure if that's a BC
> break
> > that would be acceptable this late. An alternative operator may be more
> > suitable.
>
> Since the discussion about it is quite vivid at the moment:
> wouldn=92t this be a nice candidate for one of the changes in the next ma=
jor
> version?
>
>
What are your (everyone's) thoughts on the following, given the current
topic of discussion?

    $foo =3D $fo ?: 'default'; // see what I did there?

I'm not sure changing the ?: to always use isset() is necessarily a good
thing given my propensity for tiping mystakes.


>
> --
> Cheers Jannik
>
>
>

--001a11349750f0303c04ec1746bd--