Er, that should read, “anything non (null, false, undefined) is true” > On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:51 AM, shadda <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
