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

Hi, I changed the name but I really don’ know how to change the url :) Midori > On 24 Mar 2016, at 21:35, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hi, > > Sara Golemon wrote: >> 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 > > The other suggestion was to change "coalesce" to "coalescing", because the > former is a grammatical error I made when I wrote the original ?? RFC, whereas the latter is the > correct name. > > Actually, if we go back to my original email on this subject: > >>>> Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds: >>>>> 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 mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC 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. > > I already gave a suggestion for a name there: "null-coalescing assignment operator". > > It's not a big deal, though. :) > > -- > Andrea Faulds > https://ajf.me/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >