Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100524 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36004 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2017 21:35:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Sep 2017 21:35:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lists@rhsoft.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lists@rhsoft.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lists@rhsoft.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 91.118.73.15 mail.thelounge.net Received: from [91.118.73.15] ([91.118.73.15:23615] helo=mail.thelounge.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 51/AA-10715-1B107B95 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:35:47 -0400 Received: from srv-rhsoft.rhsoft.net (Authenticated sender: h.reindl@thelounge.net) by mail.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE MTA) with ESMTPSA id 3xrh71747nzXMT for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:35:41 +0200 (CEST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <0db9cfa3-2b31-ee41-713c-889b7cc06406@lsces.co.uk> <3C.DD.10715.4E501B95@pb1.pair.com> <93.85.10715.AB3B3B95@pb1.pair.com> <049578E9-4C9A-42D8-B206-8ABAF070E151@koalephant.com> <05A8DB1C-4683-4934-A7DA-C7CD71E6CCB6@koalephant.com> Message-ID: <3f900f87-ca88-a7e1-4c11-6263455f2039@rhsoft.net> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:35:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: de-CH Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A validator module for PHP7 From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net") Am 11.09.2017 um 23:07 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Stephen Reay >> So, you still didn’t actually provide an example. I *guess* you’re talking >> about character class validation or something else equally “simple”, >> because I can’t imagine what else would be a common enough case that you’d >> want to have built-in rules for, and that you wouldn’t internally use >> RegExp to test anyway. > > Your request is like "Devil's Proof". Example code that cannot do things > with existing API cannot exist with meaningful manner. It can be explained > why it cannot, though. Try what "validate" string validator can do, > Then you'll see. > > There is no STRING validation filter currently. This fact alone, > it could be said "filter cannot do string validation currently". > > List of problems in current validation filter but you still fail to explain why in the world you don#t try to enhance the existing filter functions instead invent a new beast leading finally to have the existin filter functions and your new stuff which share the same intention