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

Hi. I like Adam's suggestion _a lot_ however I'd also find a third case very useful. In addition to: ********* // 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'; ********* I would also like a case where you could: // new ?? double ternary that performs isset check and uses null $value = $a[$key]??; This would replace a lot of ugly code I have where: (the @ operator is ugly) $value = @$a[$key]; When I want to treat all non existing indexes as containing the null value. ~Hannes On 8 April 2011 09:02, Adam Richardson <simpleshot@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>  We need to be careful about changing the beahviour of existing > > operators. > > > > Indeed. > > The '?' character already is special, so using '??' seems like a safe, > practical approach. However, I'd prefer maintaining the form of the standard > ternary operator with the colon ($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