Re: [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator

On 10 Sep 2014, at 10:31, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote: >> On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> 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. > > After a 2nd look I have to agree here too. Changing behavior in > something so widely used as the current operator will likely create > more pains. A new operator, clearly documented, sounds much cleaner, > even more as it does something different anyway. By popular demand, I’ve changed the RFC to instead propose a ?? operator, after Nikita Popov generously donated a working ?? patch. In doing so, the RFC is renamed “Null Coalesce Operator”. Please read it: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary Thanks! -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/