Hi,
Sara Golemon wrote:
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
The other suggestion was to change "coalesce" to "coalescing", because
the former is a grammatical error I made when I wrote the original ??
RFC, whereas the latter is the correct name.
Actually, if we go back to my original email on this subject:
Den 2016-03-13 kl. 02:59, skrev Andrea Faulds:
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mistake ("coalesce" instead of "coalescing") that I originally made in my RFC for ??.[3] I think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.
I already gave a suggestion for a name there: "null-coalescing
assignment operator".
It's not a big deal, though. :)
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
