Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Am 08.09.2014 15:58, schrieb Andrea Faulds:
>>> We could add such an operator, perhaps with the ?? syntax. However, I
>>> don’t really like the idea. It’s too similar to ?: so I don’t think
>>> it’d be accepted, and even if it was, I’m not sure we really need
>>> another operator. I’d much rather just make ?: do what, IMO, is the
>>> right thing and what it always should have done.
>>
>> I'd rather had a shortcut for the following:
>>
>>   isset($_GET['foo']) ? $_GET['foo'] : BAR
>
> Agreed. That's what ifsetor requests have generally boiled down to
> over the years, so it seems to be what the masses want.
>
> It's what _I_ want, anyway. :)
>
>> Of course, it is not possible to change the ?: operator to work this way
>> for BC reasons, but a new operator such as ?? might make sense.
>
> +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.


-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org