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 quite well in the given >> situation and is non-ambiguous as well. >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173224.aspx > > 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 not sure we really need > another operator. I’d much rather just make ?: do what, IMO, is the > right thing and what it always should have done.
I'd rather had a shortcut for the following: isset($_GET['foo']) ? $_GET['foo'] : BAR What the "Implicit isset() in Shorthand Ternary Operator" RFC proposes is not equivalent (despite the RFC's name), consider e.g. $_GET['foo'] === "" $_GET['foo'] === "0" Of course, it is not possible to change the ?: operator to work this way for BC reasons, but a new operator such as ?? might make sense. -- Christoph M. Becker -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
