Re: [RFC] anti-coalescing-operator

Hi Ken, This is definitely an interesting idea, and when described as "the opposite of ??" the !?? syntax makes sense. Looking at the example, though, the "negating" part becomes a bit confusing. The verbose form reads naturally as a positive assertion - "if this is set, do this":

         if (isset($_SERVER['fname']) {
             $user->setName($_SERVER['fname']);
         }

If we used the ?? operator, it would be a negative, "if this is not set, do this":

         $_SERVER['fname'] ?? $user->unsetName();

So the short-hand form becomes a kind of double negative - "if this is not set, don't do this", or "if this is not not set, do this":

         $_SERVER['fname'] !?? $user->setName($_SERVER['fname']);

That makes me think that the choice of syntax isn't quite right, but I'm not sure what to suggest instead. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]