Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77307
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.208 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAKZZz6eGC6XH8WdDKL0V50bDZ3AE_8+J3HEjWPaNY40k8UTgGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:41:52 +0100
Cc: Gwynne Raskind <gwynne@darkrainfall.org>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A7C1D67D-F81D-43B1-851B-383B2C6F71AE@ajf.me>
References: <F3528124-17C4-4DB1-B11A-E9132775A144@ajf.me> <CAJF_ukW_rJjbzCHby4L71wAueBGRCfo4uOizWAxX6ngAHvdN0A@mail.gmail.com> <54E82419-931D-4F9E-8115-175EA1BDC970@darkrainfall.org> <CAKZZz6eGC6XH8WdDKL0V50bDZ3AE_8+J3HEjWPaNY40k8UTgGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Boere <pete@the-echoplex.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)


On 18 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Pete Boere <pete@the-echoplex.net> wrote:

> I'm seeing '??' as analogous to the way JS developers use '||', and I =
use
> that all the time when writing JS.

PHP already has a direct equivalent to ||, namely the ?: operator. =
However, unfortunately PHP always spits out a notice on non-existent =
indices, unlike JS which just results in undefined, so we need to add a =
special operator to silence it.

> Personally I wouldn't be interested in a function version because the
> short-circuiting of '??' is an important distinction; not something =
you can
> replicate with a function. Therefore having both would be confusing =
IMO.

We could use a function *syntax*, though, but I don=92t like this idea. =
coalesce() and ifsetor() are both ugly to me, and it=92s not super =
obvious what they do:

    var_dump(coalesce($_GET[=91foobar=92], 3));

vs.

    var_dump($_GET[=91foobar=92] ?? 3);

?? also has the advantage of being shorter.

> Also, not much sure about a '??=3D', perhaps it should be a followup =
RFC
> should '??' be accepted.

It=92d make sense to do it within this RFC if possible. If it seems too =
controversial, it could always have a separate vote within the RFC.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/