Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100426
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:47:38 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuSL1kEW60S7DFJb06+r2Q3rC1ueeWU1jAP78FY65aJoDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXafM0QgMdCuUfEnNcejHAi208=4tCqbi1APT20Z_jcvuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADyq6s+QpHB2iPb=T=M2NL1aUTS=Uuf07WpQR5j26kFKDCxzpg@mail.gmail.com> <0C7F986C-B0BC-4315-98ED-B4FD003B9399@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXa-6kN1yEbnVzbReLX3qH2gVJ5LTmfR31jOp_GwASbrrA@mail.gmail.com> <e14c1e6f-4677-6a87-ef30-e3e627c26270@lsces.co.uk> <c08cbbf5-fb27-7c50-3bcc-c89ccfbd6202@rhsoft.net> <2a4491b4-e6f5-4297-beec-363f373a93e6@lsces.co.uk> <3f8be7b1-0e59-21c6-4fe8-8299b2c05645@rhsoft.net> <6ba62d62-f1ab-9e7b-93f0-a1a9238c47a6@lsces.co.uk> <CAGa2bXYch8UJ70No=UvqtQ79pKbJ1MRtHN0QLk8kCSV+yhMNbg@mail.gmail.com> <f8959d0a-429f-4efc-8682-572680a075fa@lsces.co.uk> <E83D7E80-5DC8-49AC-9FA6-D6C1A42ADAE7@gmail.com> <0db9cfa3-2b31-ee41-713c-889b7cc06406@lsces.co.uk> <E9DCBF61-8B3D-41C3-9D09-61C6CC8810F3@gmail.com> <CA+kxMuSuB7xcMYXcsVj4NDZKwBZWq3sbt2h6s9J4QxzOcfCTHg@mail.gmail.com> <B234C70B-2012-443B-967D-C819D65C9C5B@gmail.com> <CA+kxMuSL1kEW60S7DFJb06+r2Q3rC1ueeWU1jAP78FY65aJoDg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <BC1D156C-44CD-4EBD-882A-07A53F2E4EF0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A validator module for PHP7
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 6 September 2017 21:33:53 BST, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality=2Ecom> wr=
ote:
>On 6 September 2017 at 13:31, Rowan Collins <rowan=2Ecollins@gmail=2Ecom>
>wrote:
>> I'm going to assume that the code you posted was something of a straw
>> man, and you're not actually advocating people copy 20 lines of code
>for
>> every variable they want to validate=2E
>
>You assume wrong=2E No it's not, and yes I am=2E
>
>I can point a junior developer at the function and they can understand
>it=2E
>
>If I ask that junior developer to add an extra rule that doesn't
>currently exist, they can without having to dive into a full library
>of validation code=2E

I can certainly agree that a complex DSL might be more pain than it's wort=
h, but copying around a regex and all its scaffolding is surely worse than =
a clearly named function like validate_non_negative_int?

That's why I asked in my last email if you thought ext/filter should be re=
moved, and perhaps replaced by some more straightforward primitives, or jus=
t left as it is=2E If a broad strategic question like that feels too much l=
ike "wasting time on the list designing features" to you, I'm not sure what=
 you would find acceptable discussion=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]