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

On Apr 07 18:03:48, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 4/7/11 5:59 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > It may change the semantics as they stand, but I'd argue that the > > _expectation_ from the shorthand ternary is to shorten code that > > currently uses isset(). As it is, I have almost no use for it at this > > point, as I end up needing to do: > > > > $value = isset($a[$key]) ? $a[$key] : 'Not set'; > > > > which is exactly the situation I had before it was introduced. > > Not sure why you would have that expectation. The long ternary doesn't > do that, and there is nothing about the short ternary that changes that. > There was talk of a new ifsetor type of operator to have those semantics > but never any talk of changing existing semantics. Well it could (and I believe that was the intention) call !empty instead of isset, that way the semantics would not be changed, appart from the lack of error for undefined variables. Best, > > -Rasmus > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >