Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77107
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name designates 209.85.213.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: adam@adamharvey.name
In-Reply-To: <06E02C9A-5D22-4AED-865E-1E020722DCED@ajf.me>
References: <F3528124-17C4-4DB1-B11A-E9132775A144@ajf.me> <CAEZPtU5qsvpAY5i6AFpgAsiFgjKmtOQ+Fzk=hx01r9+3QfOuFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL+t6cHp8syWG660dMD_3D9c0wiAWxqzv1V8qdtKh7D3iGrruQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <E8E94673-4549-4C9D-8E0F-5ECE8AC36EDF@ajf.me> <540D638B.8010303@php.net>
 <24B60FB5-35B8-4B6F-AD6C-54A8B24D4462@ajf.me> <540DC38B.3070700@gmx.de>
 <CADajX4DVrLw6x5BR1iYRQRTw3KTWv6kATVjvJcjXG9Fk_PJxyQ@mail.gmail.com> <06E02C9A-5D22-4AED-865E-1E020722DCED@ajf.me>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 17:16:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajX4D5QVPhK5GWur+RNimYuw35KTMpkZefcAKAkiaMAj6G_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator
From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey)

On 8 September 2014 17:07, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:
>
>> +1 on ?? =E2=80=94 there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have =
to
>> explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
>> the long form, which is just going to confuse users.
>
> FWIW, it already behaves differently:
>
>     oa-res-27-90:~ ajf$ php -r 'function foo() { echo "foo\n"; return tru=
e; } $x =3D foo() ?: false;'
>     foo
>     oa-res-27-90:~ ajf$ php -r 'function foo() { echo "foo\n"; return tru=
e; } $x =3D foo() ? foo() : false;'
>     foo
>     foo

You could argue whether that's unexpected behaviour or not =E2=80=94 there =
is
only one foo() call in the shorthand version, after all, so it makes
intuitive sense that foo() would only be called once.

Regardless of how you feel about that, though, I don't think
increasing the amount of inconsistency between two versions of the
same operator (forget the implementation; that's how it's documented
and how it's perceived) is a good idea.

Adam