Re: Inline conditional that returns null if falsy

> On Feb 24, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:27 PM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net > <mailto:mike@newclarity.net>> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2021, at 2:05 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com > > <mailto:rowan.collins@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 23/02/2021 18:41, Albert Casademont wrote: > >> Sure, it's not a big deal having to write the ": null" but it > >> doesn't add > >> any value > > > > > > On the contrary, it adds an important piece of information: that the default value is > > "null", rather than "false", or "0", or "new EmptyValue()". > > For instance, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that this code should produce a > > null: > > > > $items = []; > > $itemCount = $items ? count($items); > > > > I might be more convinced that "null" is the "natural" value if the > > left-hand operand was only checked against null, not "falsiness": in that case, you can > > read it as "if it's null, leave it alone". I'd still be inclined towards > > "too specific to use up more syntax", though. > > If you look at it from a software engineering perspective — which is how I assume most on > this thread have been looking at it — being more explicit in the code is probably a better > practice than saving a few keystrokes. > > OTOH, if you view it from the perspective of a *templating* language — which is what PHP was > initially created to be, for the web — then the reduction in visual noise from omitting ": > null" would be a nice plus. And in the case of templating, the distinction between null vs. > false vs. "" would be completely moot. > > > But PHP isn't just a templating language anymore. It is not? If it is not I think a lot of userland PHP developers never got that decree. > If PHP currently had support for omitting the third argument on the ternary operator, then > I'd be against changes that required it given the BC implications. Can you elaborate on those? > I think just dropping the need for a third argument on the existing ternary operator is a bad > idea. > > I'm ambivalent when it comes to creating a new symbol to support this behavior (e.g. ?!). > I don't really think it's necessary, but, I don't think it hurts anything either. > > > Repeating code similar to that from the message sent by David Rodrigues you can see that > eliminating the ": null" is less noisy: > > <div class="user <?php user ? 'online' : null > ?>">...</div> > <div class="user <?php user ? 'online' ?>">...</div> > > Although one ":null" eliminated is not that significant, PHP templates for > generating HTML are notorious for having conditionals littered throughout, with tens if not hundreds > of cases per file. So being able to drop the ":null" would be a really nice addition for > templating. > > To emphasize this feature address templating use-cases one might argue that dropping the > "or" case of the trinary might only be supported when between single-line > "<?php" and "?>" delimiters. > > -Mike > > P.S. Of course making it work differently between single-line delimiters and elsewhere would > create inconsistency in the language so I probably would not actually argue that, I was just trying > to make a rhetorical point. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > <https://www.php.net/unsub.php> > > > > -- > Chase Peeler > chasepeeler@gmail.com <mailto:chasepeeler@gmail.com>