get and has method else removed

[khanrn]

get and has method's redundant else condition removed.

[browner12]

this is not redundant.

this changes execution since the if condition is not returning anything.

[nunomaduro]

I believe the code is more readable with your proposal. I have requested some changed tho. 👍

[nunomaduro]

I believe you made a mistake here. The code you are looking for is:

if (! static::accessible($array) ||  ! static::exists($array, $segment)) {

[khanrn]

Uh... I missed to turn the and to an or!

[nunomaduro]

I believe you made a mistake here. The code you are looking for is:

if (! static::accessible($subKeyArray) || ! static::exists($subKeyArray, $segment)) {

[khanrn]

Uh... I missed to turn the and to an or!

[tillkruss]

Tests are failing.

[Miguel-Serejo]

I am continuously unable to understand how this type of change contributes anything to anyone.

The PR description is misleading. This isn't not removing a redundant else, it is attempting to inverse the logic of a condition in order to make the else redundant, and then removing it.

Keyword being "attempting" because this simply negated both sides of an and gate instead of negating the actual condition.
Not A and Not B is not the opposite of A and B. The correct way to negate an and gate is to turn it into a nor gate, i.e. Not A or Not B. This also changes the way the expression is evaluated.
For A and B, B is only evaluated if A is true. For Not A or Not B, B is only evaluated if A is false.
In this particular case there shouldn't be a difference in behavior, and at most negligible performance differences, but it's still a change in behavior that should be acknowledged.

In short, this doesn't fix anything, the PR description is misleading, and I fail to see how
"if array is accessible and the segment exists in the array, set array to segment, else return the default value"
is any less readable than
"if array is not accessible or the segment does not exist in the array, return the default value, then set array to segment if we didn't return"

[nunomaduro]

@tillkruss Yeah. There is a mistake on the new if condition 😕

[tillkruss]

Please resubmit with CI passing.

[khanrn]

Uh... A lot has happened here while I was sleeping! 😮 Anyway, I'm fixing the issue and will resubmit the PR. Thanks to all of you. 😄