On 4/7/11 5:35 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
On Apr 07 18:03:48, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 4/7/11 5:59 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
It may change the semantics as they stand, but I'd argue that the
_expectation_ from the shorthand ternary is to shorten code that
currently uses isset(). As it is, I have almost no use for it at this
point, as I end up needing to do:
$value = isset($a[$key]) ? $a[$key] : 'Not set';
which is exactly the situation I had before it was introduced.
Not sure why you would have that expectation. The long ternary doesn't
do that, and there is nothing about the short ternary that changes that.
There was talk of a new ifsetor type of operator to have those semantics
but never any talk of changing existing semantics.
Well it could (and I believe that was the intention) call !empty instead
of isset, that way the semantics would not be changed, appart from the
lack of error for undefined variables.
Since I see the beast has risen from the dead, I'd like to chime in
again for my proposal to have a "function" called "filled". It is the
opposite of empty() and takes variable number of arguments. The first
non-empty value is returned. example:
$x = filled($myarray['badkey'], $varundef, $obj->nosuch, $default);
This *must* be created in the Zend engine because userland can not catch
the unset keys and variables.
Again, "filled()" would be the opposite of empty() and we'd need some
other function similar to be the opposite of isset() if you wanted that
type of check. The proposed filled() will suit all my needs with great
satisfaction :-)
-- Dante
----------
D. Dante Lorenso
da...@lorenso.com
972-333-4139
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
