Hello, On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <weierophin...@php.net> wrote: > On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote: >> > I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few >> > threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common >> > theme - "I wanna be a lazier coder."
My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain. However, you may find 415,000 reasons why this feature could be useful for developers in [1]. I also really like the <whatevername>($foo['not exists'], $config['not exists'], $foo, $bar, 'default') function. I personally only usually need 1 default value but I feel like many people may find uses for this as well. In addition I would like to mention that the checking being "isset" for such a feature would be a very reasonable option, seeing as empty [2], array_key_exists [3] (7000 uses found only) etc type use cases are probably going to be a big minority. Most of the time checks done with empty() seem to be done on known or already isset() checked, I.E. isset($foo['bar']) && !empty($foo['bar']) anyways. Just some food for thought, -Chris [1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*isset\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search [2] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*php+.*empty\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search [3] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=.*array_key_exists\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3F&sbtn=Search -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
