Re: Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
| From: | Ferenc Kovacs | Date: | Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:35:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-51994@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Hannes Landeholm <landeholm@gmail.com>wrote:
> I was planning on replying to the "coalesce" suggestion but you really took
> my concerns and stated them much better than I could have myself, plus a
> couple of other concerns I didn't even think about.
>
> To respond to Arpad Ray's statement:
>
> "To elaborate, I'd probably think this code was an unlikely series of
> typos,
> or an encoding error:"
>
> In my opinion that's a good thing. Then you might actually look it up in
> the
> documentation instead of making the assumption that the syntax has
> function-like properties just because it looks like a function. For
> example,
> it took me at least 1 year from first encountering empty() until
> understanding that it's not a normal function and actually a language
> construct that suppresses unset notices. And I'm a pretty seasoned
> programmer. There's only one thing worse than magic: hidden magic.
>
>
and we should try to avoid adding more magic where we can.
Tyrael