Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> Same here.
>
> Here's my take:
>
> [1] I don't like ?? / ? because it is disjunctive with === / ==.. The
> extra equals sign strengthens equality comparison, while the extra
> question mark essentially _weakens_ the ternary operator (making it
> more forgiving). (
On 4/7/11 5:35 PM, Etienne Kneuss wrote:
On Apr 07 18:03:48, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 4/7/11 5:59 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
It may change the semantics as they stand, but I'd argue that the
_expectation_ from the shorthand ternary is to shorten code that
currently uses isset(). As it i
> Because what "success" means in this context is that the function could be
> executed. If you see the implementation of zend_call_function, you'll notice
> the conditions that return FAILURE are those where the execution of the
> target function doesn't even begin.
>
> You can check for exception
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:03:16 +0100, Herman Radtke
wrote:
An extension is using zend_call_function to call a userland function.
If the userland function throws an exception, zend_call_function will
still return SUCCESS. Why isn't zend_call_function returning FAILURE
on an exception? Is there
An extension is using zend_call_function to call a userland function.
If the userland function throws an exception, zend_call_function will
still return SUCCESS. Why isn't zend_call_function returning FAILURE
on an exception? Is there a way to check if an exception was thrown
after zend_call_func
Hi guys
Below is a discussion about some of the issues being raised. Again a
nicely formatted version of the whole thing is here:
https://gist.github.com/909711.
## Discussion ##
### About changing the beviour of the ternary shortcut ###
@Jordi, others
Some suggest adding an implicit `isset` a
