Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79549
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain fb.com does not designate 67.231.145.42 as permitted sender)
To: Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
CC: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls
Thread-Index: AQHQFATxvp9RjOsogUO8aMy5/EMi+5yJmRsAgAAfIACAAAKqAIAAEHkAgAA1rQA=
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:31:54 +0000
Message-ID: <F2877B4B-09D1-4622-BCFC-1CE03991F268@fb.com>
References: <95A581EE-A062-4926-BE44-BCA87FC9B356@fb.com>
 <9230CB24-22FC-4A0E-A9D5-F02523B65A02@ajf.me>
 <583B9A4B-68FD-4FB1-B043-0D86E2480EAD@fb.com>
 <324758A2-E3A6-46C1-9209-998F7E936B77@ajf.me>
 <002701d014b6$a763bfc0$f62b3f40$@tutteli.ch>
In-Reply-To: <002701d014b6$a763bfc0$f62b3f40$@tutteli.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <26FAC4EF9E87E24EB88092C61AA72C7D@fb.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls
From: jwatzman@fb.com (Josh Watzman)


>> .huh? I'm not talking about exceptions the object itself throws. In PHP =
7, if Nikita's RFC passes, trying to call a method on
>> NULL will throw an exception. That largely negates the need for a specia=
l operator, since you can just catch the exception.
>>=20
>> Thanks.
>> --
>> Andrea Faulds
>>=20
>=20
> I think it is a matter of taste whether you use try/catch as control stru=
cture or only as exception handling. I for
> myself usually try to avoid using it as control structure and thus would =
write something like:
> if($a !=3D=3D null){
>   $a->foo(bar());
> }
>=20
> And for this case the ?-> operator seems perfect for me

Yeah, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, sorry it wasn't clear=
: that when to use exceptions are up to taste, and in my taste (and others'=
), catching exceptions here aren't appropriate in the slightest. (Not that =
*throwing* them is wrong -- if you expect that object to be non-null, then =
throwing one is great -- my problem is with dealing with that failure by im=
mediately catching it. See my original post for the extended explanation.)

So I find this operator really useful here.

Josh