In theory you'd only *need* it be considered a suppressor? PHP already
exhibits the skipping behaviour (it only emits a warning for the wrong type
used in `foreach`, skips the loop, and then continues with remaining code).
No harm in/there is probably value in, making that skipping intent explicit
in a RFC though, but in terms of a patch, the warning would only need be
suppressed as far as I can tell?
Another thing I meant to mention -- this should not only be useful for
arrays, but for any `Traversable` too (i.e. it should suppress errors
generated in using a type not compatible with being iterated over in a
`foreach` loop, and not just if the type is not array).
Kind regards,
Aidan
On 12 July 2017 at 02:50, Mark Shust <m...@shust.com> wrote:
> 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]
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
