1. Suppression of notice. I agree, it is best done only for array
keys. It's not hard to initialise a variable with $var=null at the
beginning of a code block to avoid such a notice, and that is the
appropriate way to do it for variables.
2. Offering a shortcut for the common idiom isset($x) ? $x : $y in
line with the DRY design principle. A notice would never be emitted
here in any case. The problem is that this idiom is still in wide use
despite the shortcut ternary operator already provided, because an
isset() check is different to a boolean cast.
Some thoughts:
- The actual intent of 2. is probably $x!==null ? $x : $y i.e. it's
not about suppressing notices at all, but about offering a default
value, and the idiom quite probably only uses isset() because it
predated null in the language.
I have never felt the need for a shortcut in these cases. It would be
interesting to see some code where this would be practical.
I have many, many uses for this. E.g. patterns like this:
class Foo {
private $defaultBar;
public function foobar(Bar $bar=null) {
$bar = isset($bar) ? $bar : $this->defaultBar;
$bar->doSomething();
}
}
The default value of null indicates that the argument is able to be
omitted, and the type hinting mechanism understands that. Yet it's
awkward to actually test whether it's been omitted or not without
writing the argument multiple times. It'd be great to be able to write
the first line succinctly, e.g.
$bar $:= $this->defaultBar;
That's just one case. There are many more.
As I said above, though, I probably should have written $bar!==null
rather than isset($bar), because I actually would want the warning if
$bar was not defined (i.e. I had mistyped it).
- If we view 2. in this way, the two problems are independent, and it
seems to me it would be best to solve them independently, rather
than with a single operator.
So, I suggest:
1. An array lookup mechanism that suppresses the notice for undefined
keys. It would work the same as regular array index lookups except
that the notice for undefined keys (and only for undefined keys)
would not be generated (it would not just be hidden, but would never
be even generated).
This is what I feel PHP is missing. Particularly when it comes to
multi-dimensional arrays. Because this feature is missing I tend to do
something like
function generateHash($x, $y, $z)
{
return "$x::$y::$z";
}
if (isset($a[generateHash($x, $y, $z)]) {
...
}
instead of
if (isset($a[$x]) && isset($a[$x][$y]) && isset($a[$x][$y][$z])) {
...
}
I don't really understand your example, or how an error-suppressing
array index lookup helps it, but I do think the feature is useful.
I actually think there is enough support for both these things, and
implementing them independently allows those who want to use one but not
the other to do so.
Arguing about syntax is then a second step. However, my views on this
are:
I think it best to avoid discussing the actual syntax before agreeing on what we
really need.
I agree. In fact I sent the previous mail by mistake; I had intended to
archive my thoughts on syntax and send the mail without them, but I
bumped send.
Ben.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
