Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion. I've taken that into the short-ternary version. And as a minor edit (not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null coallesce.
-Sara On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Midori Kocak <mtko...@gmail.com> wrote: > there were no suggestions. Do you have one? > >> On 24 Mar 2016, at 16:36, Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote: >> >> Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds: >>> Hi Midori, >>> >>> Midori Kocak wrote: >>>> Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here: >>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator >>>> <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator> >>> >>> I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add a >>> ??= operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operator. >>> >>> I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the >>> name ought to be the "null-coalescing assignment operator". This would >>> follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined >>> assignment operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like >>> what == and === do, to me) and avoids the mistake ("coalesce" instead of >>> "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that RFC >>> naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature >>> tends to be the one that ends up in the manual. >>> >>> Anyway, thank you for your RFC! >>> >>> [1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php >>> [2] >>> https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions.md#compound-assignment >>> [3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs >> >> Any conclusion on naming of operator, remain or change? >> >> Regards //Björn >> > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
