If you were willing to accept
```
foreach ($foo as $bar) if (is_array) {
...
}
```
as a solution, then you might as well use
```
if (is_array($foo)) foreach ($foo as $bar) {
...
}
```
I wonder if this could be better achieved by expanding what the error
suppression operator `@` can do? This entire behaviour seems more like an
error suppression action on `foreach` to me, otherwise should we consider
coalescing operators for other types/creating a more generic one?
Going back to the error suppression operator:
e.g. perhaps
```
foreach ($foo @as $bar) {
...
}
```
could prevent skip past execution of the entire foreach block if there is
an error using $foo as an array. So might make most sense to place the `@`
on `as`, IMO, but I guess arguments could be made to place it like
`@foreach ($foo as $bar)` or `foreach @($foo as $bar)`.
Regards,
Aidan
On 11 July 2017 at 20:06, Mark Shust <m...@shust.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the great feedback.
>
> Based on the last mindset on keyword syntax, this comes to mind, intended
> to be used similarly to the 'use' keyword when used within the context of a
> closure:
>
> foreach ($foo as $bar) if (is_array) {
> ...
> }
>
>
> I don't think this is a vast improvement over wrapping this within an
> is_array check, however it does avoid the additional nest/wrapping. I was
> hoping for something that reads a bit more concisely or with a bit more
> syntactical sugar than the above. I think this does read nicely though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:50 PM Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11 July 2017 16:02:18 BST, Mark Shust <m...@shust.com> wrote:
> > >For a syntactic
> > >sugar/improvement, this can be shorthand for executing the loop instead
> > >of
> > >wrapping the block within an is_array check:
> > >
> > >
> > ><?php
> > >
> > >$foo = "abc";
> > >
> > >foreach (??$foo as $bar) {
> > >
> > > echo $bar;
> > >
> > >}
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think there's definitely the start of a good idea here, but the syntax
> > you suggest doesn't read quite right. As has been pointed out, this
> differs
> > from existing features in two ways:
> >
> > - the special handling is for any non-iterable value, not just null or
> > empty/falsey values, for which you could use $foo??[] and $foo?:[]
> > respectively
> > - the handling is to skip the loop, not loop once assigning $bar to the
> > scalar value, as would happen with (array)$foo
> >
> > The challenge, then, is to come up with some syntax that somehow suggests
> > these rules. The "??" is too much like the null coalesce, which would be
> > misleading.
> >
> > The only idea that immediately comes to mind is a keyword:
> >
> > foreach ifarray ($foo as $bar) {
> >
> > I can't say I'm that keen on that syntax, but maybe it will inspire
> > someone else.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Rowan Collins
> > [IMSoP]
> >
>
