Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91927 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74825 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2016 20:35:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Mar 2016 20:35:33 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 90.205.35.47 unknown Received: from [90.205.35.47] ([90.205.35.47:7372] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 98/2B-15440-39F44F65 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:35:32 -0500 Message-ID: <98.2B.15440.39F44F65@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <56F40965.30302@telia.com> <3A78AC53-5235-4CFE-9F0D-21F5837B6025@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:35:27 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 90.205.35.47 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC Proposal] Null Coalesce Equal Operator From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi, Sara Golemon wrote: > Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion. > I've taken that into the short-ternary version. And as a minor edit > (not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null > coallesce. > > -Sara The other suggestion was to change "coalesce" to "coalescing", because the former is a grammatical error I made when I wrote the original ?? RFC, whereas the latter is the correct name. Actually, if we go back to my original email on this subject: >>> Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds: >>>> I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined assignment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like what == and === do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature tends to be the one that ends up in the manual. I already gave a suggestion for a name there: "null-coalescing assignment operator". It's not a big deal, though. :) -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/