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

On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:40, Matthew Fonda <mfonda@php.net> wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > This is great -- thanks to you and Nikita for the work here. > > Syntax wise, I would prefer a function-like syntax, e.g. coalesce($a, $b, > 'c') or ifsetor() instead of $a ?? $b ?? 'c'. I find this more readable, > and it avoids any possible confusion about precedence within the > expressions. Either way, still +1 for this feature. > > Best regards, > --Matthew I’m STRONGLY +1 in favor of this operator, ASAP; I’ve had to write more than a few hacks to keep a large codebase I’m responsible from being a complete mess of isset() checks - 5.6 has saved me a lot of what used to be ugly workarounds (variadic functions anyone?), but this one still haunts me. I would argue for both coalesce() (as a language token) and ?? and ??=, as shorthand forms, giving the user a choice as to which they find more readable. ?? is standard in both .NET and Apple’s Swift language - Apple added it to Swift (including the chaining behavior) early during the beta cycle due to user demand for exactly this kind of logic, and it’s been part of C# for a long time. -- Gwynne Raskind