Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89349
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.44 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\))
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAHzThRpg8NowzBef8zLVFEQtVGA8xpGEUajvHnhZ6Wtxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:16:19 -0800
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <7641479E-65DD-4B5F-B1E5-2A0D4E91D69B@gmail.com>
References: <4D5D4A6D-1E94-4893-B1DF-7A8C616C871A@gmail.com> <20.F5.23339.A9822565@pb1.pair.com> <F032E95B-CA63-4458-ACA6-9019AC1B8D29@gmail.com> <457D19DF-746D-40D0-BA0F-7064D265901E@gmail.com> <CABDNdAHzThRpg8NowzBef8zLVFEQtVGA8xpGEUajvHnhZ6Wtxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 Coalesce operator
From: shadda@gmail.com (shadda)

It=E2=80=99s not hate, I happen to like that ?? was added. I=E2=80=99m =
not raising a concern nor asking for a change in its behavior. Rather, =
I=E2=80=99m asking for another, similar operator that=E2=80=99s based on =
truth-evaluation (with PHP=E2=80=99s tender, loving conversion rules =
baked in), in *addition* to ?? which tests for null/undefined =
exclusively.

=20
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Phil Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:52 AM, shadda <shadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Er, that should read, =E2=80=9Canything non (null, false, undefined) =
is true=E2=80=9D
>>=20
>>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:51 AM, shadda <shadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Hey, thanks for responding.
>>>=20
>>> However, I still think that misses the point, or at least the true =
utility of what I=E2=80=99m proposing.
>>>=20
>>> In practice, you can ignore E_NOTICE and php will happily treat null =
and !isset() as the same thing in *most* cases, so that=E2=80=99s not a =
good indicator of truthiness.
>>>=20
>>> Basically in ECMA, anything non-null, false, or undefined is true. =
PHP is very similar in that regard, but our reliance on E_NOTICE to =
(ahem) enforce isset() checks is why, I assume, we=E2=80=99re =
introducing the ?? operator to begin with.
>>>=20
>>> I just think it=E2=80=99d be nice to have a small variation on this =
feature that was less concerned with a (defined|null) semantic and more =
in keeping with PHP=E2=80=99s overall handling of implicit type =
conversion in expressions.
>>>=20
>>> Does that make more sense?
>>>=20
>>>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Hi,
>>>>=20
>>>> shadda wrote:
>>>>> I had a question-suggestion based around the cool new operator =
we=E2=80=99re getting in PHP7, the ?? operator, which as I understand it =
is the functional equivalent to perl=E2=80=99s // operator; in that they =
both test for whether or not a variable is defined, rather than it=E2=80=99=
s truthiness.
>>>>=20
>>>> This is not strictly correct. Though something of a misnomer, the =
'null coalesce operator' checks if a variable doesn't exist, but also =
that it is not null, i.e. it functions like isset().
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> Andrea Faulds
>>>> http://ajf.me/
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>>>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>=20
>=20
> Ignoring E_NOTICE is generally considered bad practice by many, and
> turning them off just to use ternaries instead of null coalesce (a
> feature we already have) doesn't seem like a benefit.
>=20
> The ?? is used the same as "a =3D b || c" in Ruby or JS. Doing that in
> PHP wouldn't work well as || works a bit differently, so ?? is used
> instead, just like C and Swift.
>=20
> Basically... it's all good. And even if you hate it you're months too
> late to raise a concern. :)