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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Hannes Landeholm <landeholm@gmail.com>wrote: > Trying to summarize this discussion... I think we can all agree that the > main problem is "code duplication for array access when parameters are > possibly not existing". I think we all can also agree that @ can be both > used properly and misused - and it is a blunt tool and not a nice solution > to the previously stated problem. > > Some suggested that the ternary if comparison should suppress the notice > automatically. This would break existing code and also be confusing since > people expect a ternary if and normal if to work the same way. > > Some suggested ?? as an array access operator that suppresses the notice > and > has 3 variants: A: nothing specified - uses null as default, B: has default > specified, C: returns X if index exists or Y if index doesn't exist. This > effectively solves the code duplication problem and is a shortcut for > saying > "the array index may or may not exist". > > One person said that the relation between ? and ?? and == and === would > make > the operator non-intuitive. Other people disagreed and claimed the > opposite. > > So basically the discussion now is what exact characters that should be > used > to represent this operator? I really hope we can get this implemented > quickly... I worked with $_POST yesterday and I could really use that ?? > operator. > > ~Hannes > There was also my suggestion of a "checked ternary" operator [see my previous email in this thread.] Backwards compatible, practical, and simple. Adam -- Nephtali: A simple, flexible, fast, and security-focused PHP framework http://nephtaliproject.com