Re: Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Ben Schmidt <mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On 1/04/11 3:29 AM, David Coallier wrote: >> >> Hey there, >> >> I've been working on a little patch that will allow variables ($1) in >> a short-ternary operation to go through an implicit isset >> (zend_do_isset_or_isempty) check so that the average use-case for the >> short-ternary operator doesn't yield in a notice whenever the first >> variable of the expression isn't set. >> >> So the use-case I'm considering is the following: >> >> <?php >>     $list = array('name' =>  'list'); >> >>     echo $list['name'] ?: 'List not set.' . PHP_EOL; >>     echo $list['name-notset'] ?: 'List not set.' . PHP_EOL; >> ?> >> >> This example, which we all know, will result in a notice for the >> second echo statement because the requested array-key doesn't actually >> exist in the array. > > I'm not familiar with the construct, but to be honest, I fail to see how > it is useful without the suppression of the notice. I mean, it's a > shorthand for isset($var)?$var:$something_else isn't it? That > presupposes that $var may not be set, but that you've accounted for that > fact, so don't want a notice about it. Obviously the isset() can only be > applied if the 'left hand side' is an lval, but I think it makes sense > to apply it whenever it is an lval. > > So a big +1 from me. > > Ben. > Its also a +1 for me, it would make the ternary operator much more useful to me e remove lots of verbose code for handling arrays. -- Rafael Dohms PHP Evangelist and Community Leader http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br http://www.phpsp.org.br