Re: Proposal: AS assertions
| From: | Robert Landers | Date: | Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:51:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: AS assertions | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-122699@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:47 PM Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:06 PM Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
> <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/03/2024 16:24, Robert Landers wrote:
> >
> > $x = $attributeReflection->newInstance() as ?MyAttribute;
> > if ($x === null) // do something since the attribute isn't MyAttribute
> >
> >
> > I think reusing nullability for this would be a mistake - ideally, the right-hand side
> > should allow any type, so "$foo as ?Foo" should mean the same as "$foo as
> > Foo|null".
> >
> >
> > A better alternative might be to specify a default when the type didn't match:
> >
> > $x = $attributeReflection->newInstance() as ?MyAttribute else null;
> > if ($x === null) // do something since the attribute isn't MyAttribute
>
> At that point, you are just reinventing already existing things. If
> you wanted to do something like that with my proposal:
>
> $x = $attributeReflection->newInstance() as ?MyAttribute ??
> MyAttribute::createDefault();
>
> Robert Landers
> Software Engineer
> Utrecht NL
Oh and there isn't any difference between:
$x as ?Type
or
$x as Type|null
The codebase I work with prefers ? over |null, but they are the same.