Re: [RFC] Four Pragmatic Directions for PHP: Simplicity, Arrays, Performance, Concurrency

In that case, maybe reuse something similar to the null-safe operator ? Something like $foo['bar']? With the ability to have some freedom in placing the ? character. This way, you have both syntactic sugar:

    return $foo['one']?;
    // is roughly equivalent to:
    return $foo['one'] ?? null;

    return $foo['one']?['two'];
    // is roughly equivalent to:
    return $foo['one']['two'] ?? null;

And here it gets interesting:

    return $foo['one']['two']?['three'];
    // is roughly equivalent to:
    if (!isset($foo['bar']) {
    trigger_error('Undefined key "one" in ...', ...);
    }
    return $foo['one']['two']['three'] ?? null;

This brings a "new" way to deal with nested array keys (like explained in the first code samples). I don't know about the parser yet, but technically, in language semantics, it is a unary-right, contrary to the "?" operator which is binary left&right and must be used alongside the ":" operator. Would need an implementation and some tests to ensure the reliability. Le 27/03/2026 à 06:26, Dan Liebner a écrit :

    On 2026-03-27 03:58, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:

On 26 March 2026 07:51:31 GMT, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>

    wrote:

- an "optional key access" operator like $foo[?'bar'] that makes

    the intent explicit but concise

    So, syntactic sugar for "($foo['bar'] ?? null)". 

That, to me, would be a massive improvement in terms of code readability. On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 11:40 PM Morgan <Weedpacket@varteg.nz> wrote:

    On 2026-03-27 03:58, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:

On 26 March 2026 07:51:31 GMT, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>

    wrote:

- an "optional key access" operator like $foo[?'bar'] that makes

    the intent explicit but concise

    So, syntactic sugar for "($foo['bar'] ?? null)".