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

> > >> We need to be careful about changing the beahviour of existing > operators. > Indeed. The '?' character already is special, so using '??' seems like a safe, practical approach. However, I'd prefer maintaining the form of the standard ternary operator with the colon ($value = $var['bar'] ?? : 'Bar was not set'; // value ="Bar was not) so the '??' operator could be applied in any situation that one would normally use the standard ternary operator. // standard $value = isset($a[$key]) ? $a[$key] : 'Not set'; // new ?? double ternary that performs isset check and omits second expression $value = $a[$key] ?? : 'Not set'; // new ?? double ternary that performs isset check and uses second expression $value = $a[$key] ?? strtoupper($a[$key]) : 'Not set'; Granted, the last example might be infrequent, but I think there's also a value in keeping the form of the double ternary (if used at all) the same as the standard ternary operator for consistency sake. Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com