Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:13428 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55871 invoked by uid 1010); 21 Oct 2004 14:15:56 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53659 invoked by uid 1007); 21 Oct 2004 14:15:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20041021141518.53657.qmail@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: <20041020110454.29582.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20041020111321.56801.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20041020112139.91563.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <008c01c4b6f6$4fd9a450$0a00a8c0@home.jevon.org> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:13:42 +0200 Lines: 77 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Posted-By: 212.238.144.71 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] suggestion: empty() with infinite parameters like isset() From: r.korving@xit.nl ("Ron Korving") I'm not really anxcious to have an anyempty() function, but I do think empty() should behalve like an allempty() just like isset() behaves like an areallset(). I guess the "weirdness" is in the fact that isset() will give a positive reply when something exists, while empty() gives a negative reply when something exists. I guess this creates the confusion and would make the allempty() functionality less likely to be used often. I guess people will want to check more often if all their vars are set, and therefor an "or" situation instead of "and" would be more suitable, because then you could do: if (empty($var1, $var2, $var3)) echo "there's an empty var"; I'd personally prefer the "and" situation, but it's a fact that this would make it far less useful than the "or". So I can see the confusion and the reason to just stick with 1 parameter. I guess there should just be a function like isset() which returns !empty(). Maybe it should be called isval() or something. Then it could be used for several vars without confusion: if (!isval($var1, $var2, $var3)) return "there's an empty var"; This would make sense to everybody I think, because like isset() it would be an "and" situation. Ron "Jevon Wright" wrote in message news:008c01c4b6f6$4fd9a450$0a00a8c0@home.jevon.org... > How about anyempty($var1, $var2, $var3, ...) ? > > Jevon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Korving" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:21 AM > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] suggestion: empty() with infinite parameters like > isset() > > > > Maybe it was a bad example. Writing "data missing" I was thinking that at > > least one variable should be set. > > > > Ron > > > > "Derick Rethans" schreef in bericht > > news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0410201315360.1991@localhost... > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Ron Korving wrote: > > > > > > > Okay, I don't wanna make remarks that may have already been made > > earlier, > > > > but I think it should be "all should be empty", because it works > exactly > > the > > > > same for isset(), and apparently, a decision was made to give isset() > > that > > > > feature. > > > > > > Right, but then your example would already no longer have worked: > > > > > > if (empty($var1, $var2, $var3)) echo "data missing"; > > > > > > so there is no point in adding it like that. > > > > > > Derick > > > > > > -- > > > Derick Rethans > > > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > >