Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77265 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 8743 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2014 18:34:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2014 18:34:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.208 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.208 imap2-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.208] ([192.64.116.208:54056] helo=imap2-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EB/76-64534-2A288145 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:34:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EA38C007D; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap2.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7Ehd0Ntl-3ZO; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.27.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5A188C0081; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:34:02 +0100 Cc: Adam Harvey , Christoph Becker , PHP internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <324F7C72-BC72-4109-941E-BA2947EFA4E7@ajf.me> References: <540D638B.8010303@php.net> <24B60FB5-35B8-4B6F-AD6C-54A8B24D4462@ajf.me> <540DC38B.3070700@gmx.de> To: Pierre Joye X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 10 Sep 2014, at 10:31, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey wrote: >> On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker = wrote: >> +1 on ?? =97 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. >=20 > After a 2nd look I have to agree here too. Changing behavior in > something so widely used as the current operator will likely create > more pains. A new operator, clearly documented, sounds much cleaner, > even more as it does something different anyway. By popular demand, I=92ve changed the RFC to instead propose a ?? = operator, after Nikita Popov generously donated a working ?? patch. In = doing so, the RFC is renamed =93Null Coalesce Operator=94. Please read it: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary Thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/