Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C<::>
