I was planning on replying to the "coalesce" suggestion but you really took
my concerns and stated them much better than I could have myself, plus a
couple of other concerns I didn't even think about.
To respond to Arpad Ray's statement:
"To elaborate, I'd probably think this code was an unlikely series of typos,
or an encoding error:"
In my opinion that's a good thing. Then you might actually look it up in the
documentation instead of making the assumption that the syntax has
function-like properties just because it looks like a function. For example,
it took me at least 1 year from first encountering empty() until
understanding that it's not a normal function and actually a language
construct that suppresses unset notices. And I'm a pretty seasoned
programmer. There's only one thing worse than magic: hidden magic.
~Hannes
On 23 April 2011 05:05, Ben Schmidt <mail_ben_schm...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> It's good for some situations, but there are plenty more where it doesn't
> cut it, e.g. $_GET[?'foo'] $:= get_default_from_db('foo') $: "hard-coded".
>
> Ben.
>
>
