Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96906
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.178 as permitted sender)
To: Antony D'Andrea <contactme@antonydandrea.com>
References: <A2B4634FB13FB849A1CCA442A9F793304D0615F1@exch4-mbx03.email4.local>
 <CAEYWF=5dwC=_mNTWRsovkRhHrWFiJkegYaCd1cO7G3OOm0Xnnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2B4634FB13FB849A1CCA442A9F793304D0637D1@exch4-mbx03.email4.local>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <0a4e6cf1-e98c-4a0e-803d-9caef1173433@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:17:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A2B4634FB13FB849A1CCA442A9F793304D0637D1@exch4-mbx03.email4.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposed RFC (about ?! operator)
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> It has not taken long to find situations where this idea starts to
> fall apart. For example, in the case of strpos, I would hope for the
> return value, but in other cases I would want the the original input
> if the output is not false.

A side note - when discussing an idea, it would be great to use a
descriptive subject next time. E.g.: "RFC idea - new ?! operator". It is
not uncommon that several RFC are discussed at the same time, much
easier when each one has a descriptive subject. Also, emails are
archived and somebody interested in the same idea in the future may try
to find this discussion a year or two from now, and the descriptive
subject would help a lot.

Thanks,
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com