On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Sanford Whiteman < swhitemanlistens-softw...@cypressintegrated.com> wrote:
> [...] > You do raise (maybe on purpose, not totally clear what you were > getting at) the question of whether a more complex (expr1) in one of > these theoretical ternarys w/implicit isset, however it is > implemented, would apply the isset to _any_ variable in (expr1)? That > is, if $a or $b do not exist, does > > $a > $b ?? ... > > return an error? What if both do not exist? My feeling is that either more complex expressions for operators with an implicit "isset" or "!empty" shouldn't work, or that they should cause notices. It's a moot point for null-coalescing operators. Since the proposal is to deal with specific, common usage patterns, it should stay focused on those patterns unless during development it's revealed that a more general case is as easy or easier to implement.
