Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79550
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain fb.com does not designate 67.231.153.30 as permitted sender)
To: Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls
Thread-Index: AQHQFATxvp9RjOsogUO8aMy5/EMi+5yJh4YAgAAo4YCAAB3TAIAANUYA
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:40:41 +0000
Message-ID: <A3D902DA-5F96-47C9-971F-8DDFCD046657@fb.com>
References: <95A581EE-A062-4926-BE44-BCA87FC9B356@fb.com>
 <000b01d01494$bb1c6520$31552f60$@tutteli.ch>
 <A81E46F6-49DC-47BE-B4D3-2B76C8A387BA@fb.com>
 <002801d014b8$151ec360$3f5c4a20$@tutteli.ch>
In-Reply-To: <002801d014b8$151ec360$3f5c4a20$@tutteli.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <29A92A761311A24897A6098CC3EDCFC6@fb.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls
From: jwatzman@fb.com (Josh Watzman)

On Dec 10, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch> wrote:

> I stick with it, evaluating it does not make sense IMO. If I want to exec=
ute it in any case then I would do something
> like this currently
>=20
> $g =3D g();
> $h =3D h();
> if($x !=3D=3D null){
>  $x->foo($g, $h)->bar(baz());
> }
>=20
> And with the ?-> operator:
>=20
> $g =3D g();
> $h =3D h();
> $x?->foo($g, $h)?->bar(baz());
>=20
> Where I do not expect that baz() is called.

You can make exactly the opposite argument too, though. I *do* expect that =
baz() would be called, and I can always explicitly write it the other way i=
f that happens to not be what I want at some point.

> You wrote it will be confusing for the user if the arguments would not be
> evaluated. I do not think so, telling them it is a short form for ($x !=
=3D=3D null ? $x->foo() : null) is very easy and
> straight forward for the user to pick up.

I think it's confusing the other way, and "instead of raising a fatal for c=
alling a method on null, it returns null" is just as simple of an explanati=
on.

> Therefore, please dig up a better example.

Yeah, gonna go do this now, had a busy morning :)

All of that said: it's not clear to me that this actually matters that much=
. I wasn't able to quickly find an example because the vast majority of the=
 Hack code I have that uses this operator isn't actually affected one way o=
r the other.

Josh