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

2014-09-16 22:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>: > Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> On 16 Sep 2014, at 19:38, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote: >> >>> On 16 September 2014 11:34, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>> Love it! Kudos to you and Nikita. > > +1 > >>> Is it possible to chain ?? operators; ie $value = $foo ?? $bar ?? 'default’? >> >> Yep: >> >> $ sapi/cli/php -r '$x = NULL; $y = NULL; $z = 3; var_dump($x ?? $y ?? $z);' >> int(3) >> >> $ sapi/cli/php -r '$x = ["yarr" => "meaningful_value"]; >> var_dump($x["aharr"] ?? $x["waharr"] ?? $x["yarr"]);' >> string(16) "meaningful_value" > Hi, As a userland point of view on this: will this have a shorthand? i.e. what will happen if i leave out the second part? ie. $var = $_GET['test'] ?? ; would that be the same as $var = @$_GET['test']; The RFC isnt clear in this regard (or that the righthand side of the operator _is_ required... maybe it's me ? Regards Robin Speekenbrink