On 14/04/11 10:08 PM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 14.04.2011 13:58, Ben Schmidt wrote:
I have many, many uses for this. E.g. patterns like this:
class Foo {
private $defaultBar;
public function foobar(Bar $bar=null) {
$bar = isset($bar) ? $bar : $this->defaultBar;
$bar->doSomething();
}
}
I'm sorry but this is not a valid use case, isset() is totally
unnecessary here. You can use
$bar = $bar ?: $this->defaultBar;
Of course it still repeats $bar, but it's not that verbose, and will
work exactly the same as what you do. I'd argue it's even better than
what you do because, if it weren't for that Bar type hint, if someone
passes false or "blah" to your function, isset() will return true, and
you'll try to call doSomething on false/"blah", which is a cute fatal error.
Actually, you'll get a cute fatal error when the function is called
because of the type hint in that case.
Anyway, yeah, sure, perhaps a bad example in its detail. I didn't spend
hours composing it. Just use a little imagination, though, and imagine
that it wasn't a type hinted object coming in, but some other value like
an integer. Then a boolean test would not work (would be false for zero
and erroneously use the default value). You then need the isset test. I
personally prefer to always use an isset/key_exists/is_null test when
I'm testing for something's 'existence' and not its 'truth'. I think
that makes the code more readable.
Ben.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
