Hi,
shadda wrote:
That’s not a bad idea, but it’s still limited in certain cases, where your list
of possibles is, lets say, complex.
At this point, I think you guys get what I’m after, and I’m wondering if anyone
else finds the idea as useful I as do.
In fact, if it didn’t break the One Law of PHP (thou shalt not break BC), I
might even suggest just giving ?: the same super power as ??, in not throwing a
notice.
This is what my RFC for the null coalesce operator was originally going
to do: make ?: use empty(). However, it was deemed a better idea to add
a new operator, ??, which uses isset(), since a falsy value != a missing
value.
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
