Re: [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator
| From: | Thomas Bley | Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:58:58 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-77274@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Sorry, I mean to implement coalesce() as a token like isset() ?
Regards,
Thomas
Andrea Faulds wrote on 16.09.2014 21:30:
>
> On 16 Sep 2014, at 20:28, Thomas Bley <mails@thomasbley.de> wrote:
>
>> What are the pros and cons of a new operator vs. a new function? For example,
>> MySQL has a coalesce() function:
>>
>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/comparison-operators.html#function_coalesce
>
> A function is useless as it wouldn’t stop you getting E_NOTICEs.
>
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>