Aidan,
Fantastic suggestion (@as) -- that is really the succinctness I was
initially looking for, and I think the intention makes a lot of sense. My
only concern/issue would be to make sure that isn't considered a
'suppressor' -- but it's actual intent is to skip the execution of the
foreach to prevent the error/loop from occurring (rather than just
suppressing an error).
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:05 PM Aidan Woods <aidantwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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]
>> >
>>
>
>
