Re: Proposed RFC (about ?! operator)

Hi! > It has not taken long to find situations where this idea starts to > fall apart. For example, in the case of strpos, I would hope for the > return value, but in other cases I would want the the original input > if the output is not false. A side note - when discussing an idea, it would be great to use a descriptive subject next time. E.g.: "RFC idea - new ?! operator". It is not uncommon that several RFC are discussed at the same time, much easier when each one has a descriptive subject. Also, emails are archived and somebody interested in the same idea in the future may try to find this discussion a year or two from now, and the descriptive subject would help a lot. Thanks, -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com