Re: proposed access modifier "silent" ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
| From: | Martin Scotta | Date: | Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:30:46 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: proposed access modifier "silent" ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-51873@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
It seems that there are no consensus about this feature so...
*if in doubt, leave it out.*
Martin Scotta
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Chris Stockton
<chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
> <weierophinney@php.net> wrote:
> > On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> >> > I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few
> >> > threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common
> >> > theme - "I wanna be a lazier coder."
>
> My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I
> would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know
> that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even
> do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in
> other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain.
> However, you may find 415,000 reasons why this feature could be useful
> for developers in [1].
>
> I also really like the <whatevername>($foo['not exists'], $config['not
> exists'], $foo, $bar, 'default') function. I personally only usually
> need 1 default value but I feel like many people may find uses for
> this as well.
>
> In addition I would like to mention that the checking being "isset"
> for such a feature would be a very reasonable option, seeing as empty
> [2], array_key_exists [3] (7000 uses found only) etc type use cases
> are probably going to be a big minority. Most of the time checks done
> with empty() seem to be done on known or already isset() checked, I.E.
> isset($foo['bar']) && !empty($foo['bar']) anyways.
>
> Just some food for thought,
>
> -Chris
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*isset\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search<http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*isset%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3F&sbtn=Search>
> [2]
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*php+.*empty\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search<http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*php+.*empty%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3F&sbtn=Search>
> [3]
>
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*array_key_exists\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search<http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*array_key_exists%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3F&sbtn=Search>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>