[RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator

Andrea Faulds wrote on 16.09.2014 20:34:

+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
the long form, which is just going to confuse users.

After a 2nd look I have to agree here too. Changing behavior in
something so widely used as the current operator will likely create
more pains. A new operator, clearly documented, sounds much cleaner,
even more as it does something different anyway.

By popular demand, I’ve changed the RFC to instead propose a ?? operator,
after Nikita Popov generously donated a working ?? patch. In doing so, the RFC
is renamed “Null Coalesce Operator”.

Please read it: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary

Thanks!

Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/

--

looks good!

What are the pros and cons of a new operator vs. a new function? For example, MySQL has a coalesce() function:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/comparison-operators.html#function_coalesce

Regards,
Thomas