The original reason that I asked for this functionality was to make it
significantly easier to work with E_ALL error reporting. When I say
easier, I mean by reducing duplicate code.
//This
$foo = (integer) ifsetor($_POST['foo'], 0);
//Instead of
$foo = (integer) (isset($_POST['foo']) ? $_POST['foo'] : 0);
It was also to be useful for accessing array elements that may or may not
be there.
I strongly agree with Ramsus that ?: is far to close to the ternary
operator and would prove to be highly confusing to beginners.
Marcus made an excellent point about the 2 versions of the function:
1) $a = ifsetor($b)
2) $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)
By the way, I'm not stuck on ifsetor() as a name, but
a) the name should be short and clear
b) the construct must be called with function like syntax
Marc,
I must ask, why are you so opposed to the function() syntax? There has
been quite a few reasons stated against the operator syntax, but I haven't
heard any reason why we should not go with the function() syntax?
Sincerely,
Jason Garber
Jason Garber wrote:
The original reason that I asked for this functionality was to make it
significantly easier to work withE_ALLerror reporting. When I say
easier, I mean by reducing duplicate code.//This
$foo = (integer) ifsetor($_POST['foo'], 0);//Instead of
$foo = (integer) (isset($_POST['foo']) ? $_POST['foo'] : 0);It was also to be useful for accessing array elements that may or may
not be there.I strongly agree with Ramsus that ?: is far to close to the ternary
operator and would prove to be highly confusing to beginners.
I don't think it would be highly confusing to someone who has already
used a ternary statement. If they haven't then even a ternary statement
would be confusing. In either case I think good documentation would be
important.
I am still on the fence about the asymmetry in that one tests isset()
while the other doesn't
Marcus made an excellent point about the 2 versions of the function:
- $a = ifsetor($b)
- $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)
See my response to Marcus' post
By the way, I'm not stuck on ifsetor() as a name, but
a) the name should be short and clear
b) the construct must be called with function like syntaxMarc,
I must ask, why are you so opposed to the function() syntax? There has
been quite a few reasons stated against the operator syntax, but I
haven't heard any reason why we should not go with the function() syntax?
I am interested in the new construct for the exact same reason, E_ALL
development. I am intersted in the ?: operator because it looks alot
simpler, especially if you want to chain them together:
$user = $_SESSION['user] ?: $_POST['user'] ?: $local_user ?: NULL;
I am not even sure if marcus' patch allowed you to nest multiple
ifsetor() calls...either way, my main goal is simplicity. I am not just
trying to be contentious, I am actually interested in a good solution.
Marc
Oh baby, oh baby. I was undecided (and really just didn't care about it
either way) but when Marc put it this way (see the bottom line there) I was
sold. That's just sexy.
-Dan, who perhaps gets a bit too into this sort of thing...
I am interested in the new construct for the exact same reason,
E_ALL
development. I am intersted in the ?: operator because it looks alot
simpler, especially if you want to chain them together:$user = $_SESSION['user] ?: $_POST['user'] ?: $local_user ?: NULL;
- Thus wrote Marc Richards:
Jason Garber wrote:
I am interested in the new construct for the exact same reason,
E_ALL
development. I am intersted in the ?: operator because it looks alot
simpler, especially if you want to chain them together:$user = $_SESSION['user] ?: $_POST['user'] ?: $local_user ?: NULL;
At this point, might as well make the Or operator silence E_NOTICE
warnings:
$user = $_SESSION['user] Or $_POST['user'] Or $local_user Or NULL;
at least it would be readable.
The biggest problem I have with using ?: is that down the line we
might just have something like:
$foo = $bar ?%@*&!: $qaz
Inventing operators that consist more than one character can lead
to trouble.
Curt
First, let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes
you've been hearing about. No, sir. Our model is the trapezoid!
Hi Marc,
To be honest, I don't care at this point. As long as we have something
implemented in 5.1 for allowing PHP users to simplify working in E_ALL
error mode.
This thing:
a) it has to base it's decision on the same logic isset() uses
b) it should not evaluate the second part unless it is needed
c) it should not be confusing
This reminds me of the instanceof keyword. What about using something like
that?
$foo = $bar setor $baz;
If that could be implemented, it may be a way to consider. It would
a) be easy to recognize
b) be easy to chain them together
c) not be confusing
d) have a short, concise, CLEAR name
Comments?
Sincerely,
Jason Garber
At 7/8/2004 07:48 PM -0400, you wrote:
Jason Garber wrote:
The original reason that I asked for this functionality was to make it
significantly easier to work withE_ALLerror reporting. When I say
easier, I mean by reducing duplicate code.
//This
$foo = (integer) ifsetor($_POST['foo'], 0);
//Instead of
$foo = (integer) (isset($_POST['foo']) ? $_POST['foo'] : 0);
It was also to be useful for accessing array elements that may or may not
be there.
I strongly agree with Ramsus that ?: is far to close to the ternary
operator and would prove to be highly confusing to beginners.I don't think it would be highly confusing to someone who has already
used a ternary statement. If they haven't then even a ternary statement
would be confusing. In either case I think good documentation would be
important.I am still on the fence about the asymmetry in that one tests isset()
while the other doesn'tMarcus made an excellent point about the 2 versions of the function:
- $a = ifsetor($b)
- $a = ifsetor($b, NULL)
See my response to Marcus' post
By the way, I'm not stuck on ifsetor() as a name, but
a) the name should be short and clear
b) the construct must be called with function like syntaxMarc,
I must ask, why are you so opposed to the function() syntax? There has
been quite a few reasons stated against the operator syntax, but I
haven't heard any reason why we should not go with the function() syntax?I am interested in the new construct for the exact same reason,
E_ALL
development. I am intersted in the ?: operator because it looks alot
simpler, especially if you want to chain them together:$user = $_SESSION['user] ?: $_POST['user'] ?: $local_user ?: NULL;
I am not even sure if marcus' patch allowed you to nest multiple ifsetor()
calls...either way, my main goal is simplicity. I am not just trying to
be contentious, I am actually interested in a good solution.