Re: Re: [RFC Proposal] Null Coalesce Equal Operator

Couldn't agree more :) //Björn Den 2016-03-24 kl. 16:49, skrev Sara Golemon:

Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion. I've taken that into the short-ternary version. And as a minor edit (not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null coallesce. -Sara On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Midori Kocak <mtkocak@gmail.com> wrote:

there were no suggestions. Do you have one?

On 24 Mar 2016, at 16:36, Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com> wrote: Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds:

Hi Midori, Midori Kocak wrote:

Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator>

I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add a ??= operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operator. I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined assignment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like what == and === do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature tends to be the one that ends up in the manual. Anyway, thank you for your RFC! [1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php [2] https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions.md#compound-assignment [3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs

Any conclusion on naming of operator, remain or change? Regards //Björn

-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php