Couldn't agree more :)
//Björn
Den 2016-03-24 kl. 16:49, skrev Sara Golemon:
Changing "equal" to "assignment" seems to have been the suggestion.
I've taken that into the short-ternary version. And as a minor edit
(not worth closing/reopening vote) would recommend the same for null
coallesce.
-Sara
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Midori Kocak <mtko...@gmail.com> wrote:
there were no suggestions. Do you have one?
On 24 Mar 2016, at 16:36, Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote:
Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds:
Hi Midori,
Midori Kocak wrote:
Forgive my rookieness and let me introduce my first RFC here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator
<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator>
I think this is a reasonable proposal. I had foreseen that we might add a ??=
operator some day when I wrote the original RFC for the ?? operator.
I do have one thing to add, though. It's something of a nitpick, but the name ought to be the "null-coalescing
assignment operator". This would follow the convention of referring to +=, -= etc. as compound/combined assignment
operators[1][2], not "equal" operators (which sounds more like what == and === do, to me) and avoids the
mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think
that RFC naming is important, because the name the author chooses for a feature tends to be the one that ends up in the
manual.
Anyway, thank you for your RFC!
[1] http://php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php
[2]
https://github.com/php/php-langspec/blob/master/spec/10-expressions.md#compound-assignment
[3] https://blog.ajf.me/2015-12-07-poorly-named-rfcs
Any conclusion on naming of operator, remain or change?
Regards //Björn
--
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
