Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:9275
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040416160223.00ba1c90@mail.ionzoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:02:42 -0400
To: internals@lists.php.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [RFC] ifsetor operator
From: jason@ionzoft.com (Jason Garber)

I completely agree with the EXACT way Marcus has proposed this operator.

The key is that the first argument must be a Variable, because it is tested 
to see if it ISSET(), not if it's null.  That is why you can't have any 
expression for the first argument - it would be like calling isset('foo'), 
which does not make any sense.

I think that this internal function addresses the need exactly, and that 
the correct solution has been arrived at.

Thanks Marcus!

Sincerely,
Jason Garber


At 4/16/2004 09:38 PM +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>[RFC] ifsetor operator
>
>Hello List,
>
>   i also agrre that an internal function is much better. And here is
>it as such an internal function (that does not result in an expensive
>function call).
>
>Synopsis: "ifsetor" "(" value "," default ")"
>
>   Returns the value if it exists or a given default value.
>
>Syntax:   "ifsetor" "(" variable [ "," expression ] ")"
>
>Semantic:
>   - The value in question must be a variable.
>   - The default value can be any expression.
>   - The default value can be omitted in which case NULL will be used.
>
>http://marcus-boerger.de/php/ext/ze2/ze2-ifsetor-20040416-2.diff.txt
>
>best regards
>marcus
>
>
>Friday, April 16, 2004, 2:12:04 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Hello Jason,
>
> > here is your operator patch:
> > http://marcus-boerger.de/php/ext/ze2/ze2-ifsetor-20040416.diff.txt
>
> > currently it uses the following syntax:
>
> > $var $: $defaul
>
> > which would equal
>
> > isset($var) ? $var : $default
>
> > Notice that at the moment the operator is '$:' and not '?:'. This is
> > because i haven't looked on how to solve the conflicts i get when i
> > use '?:'. If there is more interest in that operator i could invest
> > more work in trying to fix that problem.
>
> > best regards
> > marcus
>
> > According to your options and the possibility to implement this as a
> > function. That would only work as a parser internal function like empty
> > or set. Doing so would be very easy i guess. Though it would require a
> > new keyword say 'ifsetor' (which reflects its purpose more as 'setor').
>
> > best regards
> > marcus