Re: [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator
| From: | Andrea Faulds | Date: | Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:07:59 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-77106@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:
> +1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
> explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
> the long form, which is just going to confuse users.
FWIW, it already behaves differently:
oa-res-27-90:~ ajf$ php -r 'function foo() { echo "foo\n"; return true; } $x =
foo() ?: false;'
foo
oa-res-27-90:~ ajf$ php -r 'function foo() { echo "foo\n"; return true; } $x =
foo() ? foo() : false;'
foo
foo
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/