On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:41, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
just be hurting existing codebases on upgrading and more user education is
required to understand non-visual changes in syntax like this, lets try to
learn from our mistakes by not changing 'behaviour' anymore.
An alternative syntax that is similar and not ugly would be good since the
?: behaviour was broken from the start since you still need to run isset()
before running ?: which was the problem we tried to solve in the first
place but it just didn't happen.
I don't like the @ symbol it's too different from what's already there on
the ternary logic.
Proposal: $foo = $arr['value'] ?:: "";
Thoughts?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Chris London wrote:
We can't change the behaviour of ?: that ship has already sailed, we'llOn Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Mats Lindh wrote:
I would like to change it so it also checks for isset() so I propose the
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris London wrote:
I believe these two statements are functionally equivalent:
$foo = $foo ? $foo : 'default';
$foo = $foo ?: 'default';
They are.I believe these two statements are functionally equivalent:
$foo = $foo ? $foo : 'default';
$foo = $foo ?: 'default';
I would like to change it so it also checks for isset() so I propose the
following would be functionally equivalent:
$foo = isset($foo) && $foo ? $foo : 'default';
$foo = $foo ?: 'default';
$foo = isset($foo) && $foo ? $foo : 'default';
$foo = $foo ?: 'default';
just be hurting existing codebases on upgrading and more user education is
required to understand non-visual changes in syntax like this, lets try to
learn from our mistakes by not changing 'behaviour' anymore.
An alternative syntax that is similar and not ugly would be good since the
?: behaviour was broken from the start since you still need to run isset()
before running ?: which was the problem we tried to solve in the first
place but it just didn't happen.
I don't like the @ symbol it's too different from what's already there on
the ternary logic.
Proposal: $foo = $arr['value'] ?:: "";
Thoughts?
What if it was:
$foo ?? $trueVal : $falseVal;
with the shortened form being:
$foo ??: $falseVal;
This would make the isset($foo) && $foo functionality available for the three operand version of ??:, and by making the ? the operator that's doubled in that case would make it more clear when reading as to what's going on (and maybe make it easier to parse?).
-John
The would break the assumption that a reference to an uninitialized value
would generate a notice, unless explicitly handled in the logic.
While I also would like to have something similar to ?: to handle default
values for array keys, etc., this would change a fundamental assumption
that as been in place for many years now. I'm not sure if that's a BC break
that would be acceptable this late. An alternative operator may be more
suitable.
What do you think about using:would generate a notice, unless explicitly handled in the logic.
While I also would like to have something similar to ?: to handle default
values for array keys, etc., this would change a fundamental assumption
that as been in place for many years now. I'm not sure if that's a BC break
that would be acceptable this late. An alternative operator may be more
suitable.
$foo = $foo @: 'default';
and possibly
$foo @= 'default';
The change proposed has also been discussed several times since the
implementation of ?:. See the ifsetor-RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ifsetor
It also contains links to the discussion around the feature back then.
--mats
implementation of ?:. See the ifsetor-RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ifsetor
It also contains links to the discussion around the feature back then.
--mats
