Luke wrote:
> Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I don't like the
> overloading of :: in that way anymore. So it's possible just to add
> a ternary ?? // in addition to, and unrelated to (from the parser's
> perspective), the regular //.
Bad idea. This useful construct would then be ambiguous:
$val = some_cond()
?? $arg1 // $arg1_default
// $arg2 // $arg2_default;
> ?? !! ain't bad either.
It's definitely much better that sabotaging the (highly useful) // operator
within (highly useful) ternaries.
Damian
