On 4/7/11 2:30 PM, Rafael Dohms wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Ben Schmidt
<mail_ben_schm...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 1/04/11 3:29 AM, David Coallier wrote:
Hey there,
I've been working on a little patch that will allow variables ($1) in
a short-ternary operation to go through an implicit isset
(zend_do_isset_or_isempty) check so that the average use-case for the
short-ternary operator doesn't yield in a notice whenever the first
variable of the expression isn't set.
So the use-case I'm considering is the following:
<?php
$list = array('name' => 'list');
echo $list['name'] ?: 'List not set.' . PHP_EOL;
echo $list['name-notset'] ?: 'List not set.' . PHP_EOL;
?>
This example, which we all know, will result in a notice for the
second echo statement because the requested array-key doesn't actually
exist in the array.
I'm not familiar with the construct, but to be honest, I fail to see how
it is useful without the suppression of the notice. I mean, it's a
shorthand for isset($var)?$var:$something_else isn't it? That
presupposes that $var may not be set, but that you've accounted for that
fact, so don't want a notice about it. Obviously the isset() can only be
applied if the 'left hand side' is an lval, but I think it makes sense
to apply it whenever it is an lval.
So a big +1 from me.
Ben.
Its also a +1 for me, it would make the ternary operator much more
useful to me e remove lots of verbose code for handling arrays.
Well, it would change the semantics. And Ben, no, it isn't shorthand for
an isset() it is like writing (boolean)$var?$var:$something
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
