Hey, thanks for responding. However, I still think that misses the point, or at least the true utility of what I’m proposing.
In practice, you can ignore E_NOTICE and php will happily treat null and !isset() as the same thing in *most* cases, so that’s not a good indicator of truthiness. Basically in ECMA, anything non-null, false, or undefined is true. PHP is very similar in that regard, but our reliance on E_NOTICE to (ahem) enforce isset() checks is why, I assume, we’re introducing the ?? operator to begin with. I just think it’d be nice to have a small variation on this feature that was less concerned with a (defined|null) semantic and more in keeping with PHP’s overall handling of implicit type conversion in expressions. Does that make more sense? > On Nov 22, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hi, > > shadda wrote: >> I had a question-suggestion based around the cool new operator we’re getting >> in PHP7, the ?? operator, which as I understand it is the functional >> equivalent to perl’s // operator; in that they both test for whether or not >> a variable is defined, rather than it’s truthiness. > > This is not strictly correct. Though something of a misnomer, the 'null > coalesce operator' checks if a variable doesn't exist, but also that it is > not null, i.e. it functions like isset(). > > Thanks. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
