On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:40, Matthew Fonda mfo...@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 ?? $b ?? 'c'. I find this more readable,
and it
I'm seeing '??' as analogous to the way JS developers use '||', and I use
that all the time when writing JS.
Personally I wouldn't be interested in a function version because the
short-circuiting of '??' is an important distinction; not something you can
replicate with a function. Therefore
On 18 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Pete Boere p...@the-echoplex.net wrote:
I'm seeing '??' as analogous to the way JS developers use '||', and I use
that all the time when writing JS.
PHP already has a direct equivalent to ||, namely the ?: operator. However,
unfortunately PHP always spits out a
Pete Boere wrote (on 18/09/2014):
I'm seeing '??' as analogous to the way JS developers use '||', and I use
that all the time when writing JS.
Actually, JS's || is more analogous to the existing ?: operator, because
it checks for truthiness, not definedness (!empty() rather than isset(),
in
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 12:41 +0100, Andrea Faulds wrote:
We could use a function *syntax*, though, but I don’t like this idea.
coalesce() and ifsetor() are both ugly to me, and it’s not super
obvious what they do:
var_dump(coalesce($_GET[‘foobar’], 3));
vs.
On 18 September 2014 14:34, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 12:41 +0100, Andrea Faulds wrote:
We could use a function *syntax*, though, but I don’t like this idea.
coalesce() and ifsetor() are both ugly to me, and it’s not super
obvious what they do:
On Sep 18, 2014 9:36 AM, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de
wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 12:41 +0100, Andrea Faulds wrote:
We could use a function *syntax*, though, but I don’t like this idea.
coalesce() and ifsetor() are both ugly to me, and it’s not super
obvious what they do:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 13:46, Kingsquare.nl - Robin Speekenbrink
ro...@kingsquare.nl wrote:
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 =
2014-09-17 10:58 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon p...@golemon.com:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 13:46, Kingsquare.nl - Robin Speekenbrink
ro...@kingsquare.nl wrote:
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.
$var =
Hi Andrea,
This is great -- thanks to you and Nikita for the work here.
Syntax wise, I would prefer a function-like syntax, e.g. coalesce($a, $b,
'c') or ifsetor() instead of $a ?? $b ?? 'c'. I find this more readable,
and it avoids any possible confusion about precedence within the
expressions.
Matthew Fonda wrote (on 17/09/2014):
Hi Andrea,
This is great -- thanks to you and Nikita for the work here.
Syntax wise, I would prefer a function-like syntax, e.g. coalesce($a, $b,
'c') or ifsetor() instead of $a ?? $b ?? 'c'. I find this more readable,
and it avoids any possible confusion
On 10 Sep 2014, at 10:31, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
explain why the
On 16 September 2014 11:34, Andrea Faulds a...@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:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 19:38, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 16 September 2014 11:34, Andrea Faulds a...@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
This will be a nice addition. Kudos to you!
Is there an issue targeting next minor for this? (assuming there is one)
On 16 Sep 2014, at 19:55, Shashank Kumar shashankkumar...@gmail.com wrote:
This will be a nice addition. Kudos to you!
Really, you should thank Nikita, not me. He wrote the patch. ^^
Is there an issue targeting next minor for this? (assuming there is one)
Well, the patch is written for
Really, you should thank Nikita, not me. He wrote the patch. ^^
He gets my bag of thanks for many things.
Well, the patch is written for master. It could be back ported, but I
don’t know how.
Also, even if there is a 5.7, it sounds like it will consist purely of
bug fixes and E_DEPRECATED
Andrea Faulds wrote on 16.09.2014 20:34:
On 10 Sep 2014, at 10:31, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it
On 16 Sep 2014, at 20:28, Thomas Bley ma...@thomasbley.de wrote:
What are the pros and cons of a new operator vs. a new function? For example,
MySQL has a coalesce() function:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/comparison-operators.html#function_coalesce
A function is useless as it
Sorry, I mean to implement coalesce() as a token like isset() ?
Regards,
Thomas
Andrea Faulds wrote on 16.09.2014 21:30:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 20:28, Thomas Bley ma...@thomasbley.de wrote:
What are the pros and cons of a new operator vs. a new function? For example,
MySQL has a coalesce()
Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 19:38, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 16 September 2014 11:34, Andrea Faulds a...@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,
2014-09-16 22:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de:
Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 16 Sep 2014, at 19:38, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 16 September 2014 11:34, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
By popular demand, I’ve changed the RFC to instead propose a ?? operator,
after
On 16 Sep 2014, at 21:46, Kingsquare.nl - Robin Speekenbrink
ro...@kingsquare.nl wrote:
As a userland point of view on this: will this have a shorthand?
No.
i.e.
what will happen if i leave out the second part?
ie.
$var = $_GET['test'] ?? ;
would that be the same as
$var =
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 08.09.2014 15:58, schrieb Andrea Faulds:
We could add such an operator, perhaps with the ?? syntax. However, I
don’t really like the idea. It’s too
From: Andrey Andreev
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 5:16 PM
To: Andrea Faulds
Cc: Adam Harvey, Christoph Becker, PHP internals
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's
On 09/09/2014 18:08, rpar...@yamiko.org wrote:
I agree and think we should go with a different operator as others suggested.
If not ?? than we could use ?= like $foo ?= “default string”.
That reads like an assignment, rather than an expression - particularly
given PHP's large number of
Hi, Andrea
I feel more like Sherif Ramadan. Even so I've quite often been in the same
situation, I don't think it's a good solution to change something like
that, just for the shorthand-operator.
I think, the notice is really valuable when accessing the value and doing
something with it - like
On 07/09/14 14:25, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 7 Sep 2014, at 13:22, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've played around with this branch for a bit and seems reasonable,
passes the tests, and doesn't seem to have any serious
issues/memories leaks AFAICT.
There’s actually a
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 07/09/14 14:25, Andrea Faulds wrote:
There’s actually a quite serious issue just now, which is that it
evaluates the first operand twice if it’s not empty. This is because
$a ?: $b is expanded to empty($a) ? $b : $a,
Hi Andrea
Rather than giving a new meaning to an old operator why not have a
different operator for this?
.NET has a 'null coalescing' operator for the same purpose which works out
quite well in the given situation
and is non-ambiguous as well.
On 8 Sep 2014, at 09:06, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 07/09/14 14:25, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 7 Sep 2014, at 13:22, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've played around with this branch for a bit and seems reasonable,
passes the tests, and doesn't seem to have any
Am 08.09.2014 15:58, schrieb Andrea Faulds:
On 8 Sep 2014, at 13:04, Shashank Kumar shashankkumar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rather than giving a new meaning to an old operator why not have a
different operator for this? .NET has a 'null coalescing' operator
for the same purpose which works out
On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 08.09.2014 15:58, schrieb Andrea Faulds:
We could add such an operator, perhaps with the ?? syntax. However, I
don’t really like the idea. It’s too similar to ?: so I don’t think
it’d be accepted, and even if it was, I’m
On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
the long form, which is just going to confuse users.
FWIW, it already behaves differently:
On 8 September 2014 17:07, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
the long form, which is just going
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 8 Sep 2014, at 23:58, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
+1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
the long form, which is just
Hi Andrea,
On Sep 6, 2014 2:03 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
I’ve written an RFC and working patch which attempt to add this feature
which has been often requested: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary
I did not look at the patch yet but I like it from a feature point
I've played around with this branch for a bit and seems reasonable, passes
the tests, and doesn't seem to have any serious issues/memories leaks
AFAICT.
I can't stress enough, however, how important it is for us to avoid
inconsistencies in behavior between various forms of syntax. This is often
On 7 Sep 2014, at 13:22, Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com wrote:
I've played around with this branch for a bit and seems reasonable, passes
the tests, and doesn't seem to have any serious issues/memories leaks
AFAICT.
There’s actually a quite serious issue just now, which is that it
Good evening,
I’ve written an RFC and working patch which attempt to add this feature which
has been often requested: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary
Thanks!
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
40 matches
Mail list logo
