Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70420
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACQesk5aEbMiDwS7LiWwqmOrrr2eYWT5uH3-9_QXzFw0c3PPxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAjMSDPkyR1WMjMTMKcAoJSADBr+uA5t_9TAtpgLGnKD8BspoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADcGo3hYoKd074mPeXU5O1TnEXherDYghRQeKcamhXassY9acg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAjMSDO3Fqu9cOf9JFyxhVw1m5X39onMLexNXW81FY7+bC2d9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKxcST_SzQ95AB9_1Rv6O54vJUVwwzW8G4dws99X_Z55+HidkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAjMSDPLEe_vugnQNOzLOKe9Q7bM8NYUs8PM9=SBhBdMOeWaRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACQesk5aEbMiDwS7LiWwqmOrrr2eYWT5uH3-9_QXzFw0c3PPxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:58:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CABDNdAH_+dwMS3kzz6FQA6PZbL1qgojdWCz6qNV3nmjWsC0iPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net>
Cc: Chris London <me@chrislondon.co>, Paul Dragoonis <dragoonis@gmail.com>, 
	Mats Lindh <mats.lindh@gmail.com>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Proposal] Modification to ?: functionality
From: pjsturgeon@gmail.com (Philip Sturgeon)

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Paul Dragoonis <dragoonis@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Mats Lindh <mats.lindh@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I believe these two statements are functionally equivalent:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> $foo = $foo ? $foo : 'default';
>> >> >>
>> >> >> $foo = $foo ?: 'default';
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > They are.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 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';
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > We can't change the behaviour of ?: that ship has already sailed, we'll
>> > just be hurting existing codebases on upgrading and more user education
>> is
>> > required to understand non-visual changes in syntax like this, lets try
>> to
>> > learn from our mistakes by not changing 'behaviour' anymore.
>> >
>> > An alternative syntax that is similar and not ugly would be good since
>> the
>> > ?: behaviour was broken from the start since you still need to run
>> isset()
>> > before running ?: which was the problem we tried to solve in the first
>> > place but it just didn't happen.
>> >
>> > I don't like the @ symbol it's too different from what's already there on
>> > the ternary logic.
>> >
>>
>> My reason for the @ symbol was that it's already used to suppress errors so
>> to me it seems like it could be interpreted as a suppressed ternary but I'm
>> open to other suggestions.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Proposal:   $foo = $arr['value'] ?:: "";
>> >
>>
>> I'd be fine with this choice.
>>
>
> I don't see any value in adding yet another operator for this, we already
> support this through:
>
> $foo = @$arr['value'] ?: "";
>
>
>
>
> --
> Etienne Kneuss
> http://www.colder.ch


We probably shouldn't pretend that using @ to help set default values
is a good idea.