Andrea Faulds wrote on 16.09.2014 20:34:
>
> On 10 Sep 2014, at 10:31, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:
>>> On 8 September 2014 07:56, Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> +1 on ?? — there's precedent for it, and it means we don't have to
>>> explain why the shorthand form of an operator behaves differently to
>>> the long form, which is just going to confuse users.
>>
>> After a 2nd look I have to agree here too. Changing behavior in
>> something so widely used as the current operator will likely create
>> more pains. A new operator, clearly documented, sounds much cleaner,
>> even more as it does something different anyway.
>
> By popular demand, I’ve changed the RFC to instead propose a ?? operator,
> after Nikita Popov generously donated a working ?? patch. In doing so, the RFC
> is renamed “Null Coalesce Operator”.
>
> Please read it: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
looks good!
What are the pros and cons of a new operator vs. a new function? For example, MySQL has a coalesce() function:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/comparison-operators.html#function_coalesce
Regards,
Thomas
