I can agree that implementing ?? with isset() and not array_key_exists() would be acceptable... but empty() is a blunt compromise and much less used... The general problem is the notice being thrown when array indexes doesn't exist - which results in code duplication when you deal with it nicely. empty() tries to be a generic solution but there will always be people that has some other special definition of "emptiness" like "array that contains a single null value" and they need to write the code that defines that particular comparison anyway.
You can't have a solution that makes everything easier for everyone so let's solve one thing at a time and start with the most generic problem specifically and not all minor problems that happens to partially intersect that one. ~Hannes On 14 April 2011 16:26, Ben Schmidt <mail_ben_schm...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On 15/04/11 12:05 AM, Hannes Landeholm wrote: > >> Trying to summarize this discussion... I think we can all agree that the >> main problem is "code duplication for array access when parameters are >> possibly not existing". >> > > For me the problem is 'code duplication when a value might be null' > (whether an array, variable or something else, and regardless of whether > it was set to null, or not defined at all). > > > I think we all can also agree that @ can be both used properly and >> misused - and it is a blunt tool and not a nice solution to the >> previously stated problem. >> > > Yes. > > > Some suggested that the ternary if comparison should suppress the notice >> automatically. This would break existing code and also be confusing since >> people expect a ternary if and normal if to work the same way. >> > > Yes. > > > Some suggested ?? as an array access operator that suppresses the notice >> and >> has 3 variants: A: nothing specified - uses null as default, B: has >> default >> specified, C: returns X if index exists or Y if index doesn't exist. This >> effectively solves the code duplication problem and is a shortcut for >> saying >> "the array index may or may not exist". >> > > This only works if the test is made an isset() kind of test. If it > remains a boolean cast, it doesn't help much. (Or at least it doesn't > help me much.) > > I also think it's a bit too blunt. In all but the simplest expressions > in the condition, desired notices could be silenced. I like the idea of > being able to specify exactly which array lookups should be silenced. > > It also doesn't help the people who want an isset() style test, but > without the notice suppression, and I think there are a few people in > that category. > > > One person said that the relation between ? and ?? and == and === would >> make >> the operator non-intuitive. Other people disagreed and claimed the >> opposite. >> >> So basically the discussion now is what exact characters that should be >> used >> to represent this operator? I really hope we can get this implemented >> quickly... I worked with $_POST yesterday and I could really use that ?? >> operator. >> > > I still don't think we've reached agreement on exactly what we need. > Your summary seems to me to be of some of the earliest and least > developed ideas. I think the discussion has moved in a number of > interesting directions since then and we should draw on that later work. > > Ben. > > > >
