I've played around with this branch for a bit and seems reasonable, passes the tests, and doesn't seem to have any serious issues/memories leaks AFAICT.
I can't stress enough, however, how important it is for us to avoid inconsistencies in behavior between various forms of syntax. This is often something users complain of as often they complain about not getting such features. So let's make ternary consistent before we implement yet another oddity in PHP (half-assed and ill designed). I don't actually agree with the premise that ternary should wrap the first operand in empty() to begin with, but if this is what people want, fine. Let's just do it right. And as Rasmus mentioned in the PR, make the documentation very _cleary_ if it gets accepted. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > On Sep 6, 2014 2:03 AM, "Andrea Faulds" <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > Good evening, > > > > I’ve written an RFC and working patch which attempt to add this feature > which has been often requested: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary > > I did not look at the patch yet but I like it from a feature point of view. > We should have had this since long :) > > Cheers, > Pierre >
