[RFC Proposal] Null Coalesce Equal Operator

Remember my question about ??= operator?
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator

As I said before, I support this. The whole thing feels like a
no-brainer in terms of implementing it.

Davey mentioned on twitter[1] the idea of shortening it to X ?= Y,
but I think that would be inconsistent with other operators (e.g. *=
versus **=) and would complicate further evolutions of syntax such as
adding the X ?:= Y assignment operator (as shorthand for X = X ?: Y).

-Sara

1 - https://twitter.com/dshafik/status/707504022224154626

Hi all,

Remember my question about ??= operator?

Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator <
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator>;

This looks great! I hope it makes it into the language for sure.

One comment though, voting section should not be opened until after the
required discussion period.

Let me introduce my first RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator >

I've jumped on the bandwagon by adding a second RFC related to this
one: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_ternary_equal_operator which
focused on the short-ternary operator with the same goal of creating
and assignment version of the operation.

We can probably discuss them as a single concept since they relate to
the same underlying principle (consistency in binary operations in the
language), but I made it a separate RFC in case we want different
voting or have different concerns regarding them.

If that's a terrible idea, I can close the new one and let Midori add
?: to her original RFC.

-Sara

Hi Midori,

Midori Kocak wrote:

Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator

I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add
a ??= operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operator.

I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the
name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would
follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined
assignment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more
like what == and === do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce"
instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I
think that RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses
for a feature tends to be the one that ends up in the manual.

Anyway, thank you for your RFC!

[1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php
[2]
https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions.md#compound-assignment
[3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs

Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/

Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion.
I've taken that into the short-ternary version. And as a minor edit
(not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null
coallesce.

-Sara

there were no suggestions. Do you have one?

Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds:

Hi Midori,

Midori Kocak wrote:

Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator

I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add a ??= operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operator.

I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined assignment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like what == and === do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature tends to be the one that ends up in the manual.

Anyway, thank you for your RFC!

[1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php
[2] https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions.md#compound-assignment
[3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs

Any conclusion on naming of operator, remain or change?

Regards //Björn

Thank you! I just thought it might have been possible to change
the text between the <a...></a> tags on the RFC page. Good luck
with the voting!

Regards //Björn

Den 2016-03-30 kl. 22:25, skrev Midori Kocak:

Thank you, I removed ‘equal’, you were right.

I could not find a way to change url. Also voting is already started.

Midori

Hi,

Think the word equal should be removed from RFC name so
it becomes "Null Coalescing Assignment Operator" or?

Also on the page https://wiki.php.net/rfc, possible to change
the naming for "Null Coalesce Equal Operator" to reflect the
title in the RFC even if the underlying URL itself is the same?

Regards //Björn Larsson

Den 2016-03-24 kl. 23:49, skrev Mutlu Kocak:

thank you so much. I updated the name.

Hi Midori,

Midori Kocak wrote:

Hi,

I changed the name but I really don’ know how to change the url :)

Midori

I don't think you can change the URL. In the past I've seen people create
a new page in the /rfc/ namespace, copy the content there, and edit the old
page to point to the new one. But the URL doesn't really matter, you don't
need to change it. The original ?? RFC itself had a URL which was
completely different from the title. :)

I appreciate that you changed the name. Did you mean to remove the "Equal"
from the name, though? It's still there. (Sorry to bring this up again...)

Thanks!

Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/

--

To unsubscribe, visit:http://www.php.net/unsub.php