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 "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think that RFC 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
