On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:51 PM Björn Larsson <bjorn.x.lars...@telia.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > Excellent work! I have been waiting for this :) > > Sara, I came to think on the Short ternary Assignment Operator RFC. > Would this implementation make that one more feasible, given it > passes a vote? > >From an implementation perspective ?:= is nearly identical to ??=, so implementing it should be quite simple now. Whether an RFC for it would pass is a different question, I'm not a big fan personally... Nikita > r//Björn Larsson > > Den 2019-01-22 kl. 11:33, skrev Nikita Popov: > > > Hi internals, > > > > Some time ago an RFC for the ??= operator has been accepted: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coalesce_equal_operator > > > > However, due to implementation difficulties, the RFC hasn't landed since > > then. I'm happy to say that these difficulties are resolved now, and ??= > > has landed with > > > https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/a50198d0fef652ca052cda642d6e98a9101eb73f > > . > > > > To summarize the important ??= semantics: $a ??= $b is roughly equivalent > > to $a ?? ($a = $b). In $a[foo()] ??= bar() the function foo() will be > > evaluated exactly once, and bar() will be evaluated iff $a[foo()] is null > > (or unset). > > > > Regards, > > Nikita > > >
