Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60376
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACwt+Jdn7hS8mszbEhhFtthL7hisG-SaXDahzKb9MhY2ZjOWLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_N7fhQG_62pEgw_qm2LTDJf=ie0tN1PQVq4XNpMEYcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+Jdn7hS8mszbEhhFtthL7hisG-SaXDahzKb9MhY2ZjOWLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:39:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c9nqRwiFETJk_2f_hEyncdVkb84m9_RGRXgvAvxqupVTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset()
From: nikita.ppv@googlemail.com (Nikita Popov)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/4/12 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>:
>> PS: I added isset() too, to address the consistency concerns mentioned on IRC.
>
> I would have voted +1 if it didn't contain the isset() change. None of
> the examples used in the isset_with_expr.phpt test seems logic to me.
>
> Care to explain the consistency concerns here?
The concerns came from laruence, so maybe he could drop a comment here
:) Basically, empty() and isset() are very similar in their nature, so
changing only one of them might seem inconsistent.

Personally I don't see much use in allowing expressions in isset().
People being confused by empty(trim($_GET['foo'])) not working is
quite common, but I've never heard of somebody trying to use isset()
on a function call. The name already makes clear that it's intended
for use on variables.

So, I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to do about this. Should I
add two vote options, one for empty() only, one for both?

Nikita