On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:13 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 12:17 -0500 schrieb Sam Barrow:
> > I don't think throwing a E_NOTICE is appropriate. The isset() construct
> > doesn't throw an E_NOTICE, this shouldn't either.
>
> As far as I understand it is just an extension to the already present
> tertiary operator and therefore the ifsetor would be
> isset($_GET['foo']) ?: 'bar'.
This doesn't work how you think... if $_GET['foo'] is set then the
return value is true and not the value of $_GET['foo'].
> I don't understand why that sugar should
> act anything different and not trigger an E_NOTICE.
I thought it was supposed to be a shortcut for doing the following:
$foo = isset( $_GET['foo'] ) ? $_GET['foo'] : 'xyz';
And I thought the whole point was for it to not generate a notice. Isn't
that why the name ifsetor was chosen? Since it's supposed to work like
isset() by not generating notices?
Cheers,
Rob.
--
.------------------------------------------------------------.
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
:------------------------------------------------------------:
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily. |
`------------------------------------------------------------'
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
