Hi there,
In the "Implict isset in ternary operator" thread, the idea of a special
version of the ternary operator with an isset implied was proposed. I
don't like this idea very much, but from that I want to suggest some
sort of "default" operator.
On IRC I had a little discussion about it with nikic (Nikita), salathe
(IRC realname is Peter) and Tyrael (Ferenc).
Basically, I end up writing code like this a lot:
if (!isset($relations[$prev])) {
$relations[$prev] = [];
}
I don't like isset(), it looks quite ugly to me (although I'm fine with
empty()). And I think a non-keyword operator for it would be more
readable, and save space.
My basic idea is summed up by salathe here: https://gist.github.com/3256826
An operator (let's use ? for the time being, whether that becomes the
actual operator or not) is proposed that functions like isset, so:
$var? // same as isset(var)
This on its own is already shorter than isset(), and imo, nicer to read:
if ($var?) { /* ... */ }
However, I also propose a variant on the "var ?" form, which is "var ?
default", for specifying a default:
$var ? "default" // same as isset($var) ? $var : "default"
This would allow you to express this:
if (!isset($_REQUEST['p'])) {
$page = 'home';
} else {
$page = $_REQUEST['p'];
}
More concisely as:
$page = $_REQUEST['p'] ? 'home';
But I also propose something like a ?= operator, such that you can fill
in defaults where a variable doesn't exist:
$array['thing'] ?= "default value";
So, to some up:
| $var ? => isset($var)
$var ? default => isset($var) ? $var : default
$var ?= default => $var = $var ? default => $var = isset($var) ? $var : default|
Thoughts? This is all hypothetical, of course. It is probably not
difficult to implement, but I think it needs discussing before
implementing, I am not going to rush.
Thanks.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/