Re: [Proposal] Modification to ?: functionality

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Mats Lindh <mats.lindh@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote: > >> I believe these two statements are functionally equivalent: >> >> $foo = $foo ? $foo : 'default'; >> >> $foo = $foo ?: 'default'; >> > > They are. > > > I would like to change it so it also checks for isset() so I propose the >> following would be functionally equivalent: >> >> $foo = isset($foo) && $foo ? $foo : 'default'; >> >> $foo = $foo ?: 'default'; >> > > The would break the assumption that a reference to an uninitialized value > would generate a notice, unless explicitly handled in the logic. > > While I also would like to have something similar to ?: to handle default > values for array keys, etc., this would change a fundamental assumption > that as been in place for many years now. I'm not sure if that's a BC break > that would be acceptable this late. An alternative operator may be more > suitable. > What do you think about using: $foo = $foo @: 'default'; and possibly $foo @= 'default'; > > The change proposed has also been discussed several times since the > implementation of ?:. See the ifsetor-RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ifsetor > > It also contains links to the discussion around the feature back then. > > --mats >