Re: [Proposal] Modification to ?: functionality

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Etienne Kneuss <colder@php.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Paul Dragoonis <dragoonis@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote: >> > >> >> 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'; >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > We can't change the behaviour of ?: that ship has already sailed, we'll >> > just be hurting existing codebases on upgrading and more user education >> is >> > required to understand non-visual changes in syntax like this, lets try >> to >> > learn from our mistakes by not changing 'behaviour' anymore. >> > >> > An alternative syntax that is similar and not ugly would be good since >> the >> > ?: behaviour was broken from the start since you still need to run >> isset() >> > before running ?: which was the problem we tried to solve in the first >> > place but it just didn't happen. >> > >> > I don't like the @ symbol it's too different from what's already there >> > on >> > the ternary logic. >> > >> >> My reason for the @ symbol was that it's already used to suppress errors so >> to me it seems like it could be interpreted as a suppressed ternary but I'm >> open to other suggestions. >> >> >> > >> > Proposal: $foo = $arr['value'] ?:: ""; >> > >> >> I'd be fine with this choice. >> > > I don't see any value in adding yet another operator for this, we already > support this through: > > $foo = @$arr['value'] ?: ""; > > > > > -- > Etienne Kneuss > http://www.colder.ch We probably shouldn't pretend that using @ to help set default values is a good idea.