Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60398
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9nqRwiFETJk_2f_hEyncdVkb84m9_RGRXgvAvxqupVTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_N7fhQG_62pEgw_qm2LTDJf=ie0tN1PQVq4XNpMEYcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+Jdn7hS8mszbEhhFtthL7hisG-SaXDahzKb9MhY2ZjOWLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c9nqRwiFETJk_2f_hEyncdVkb84m9_RGRXgvAvxqupVTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 18:43:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH4vqVxtJbyrSThH0LSqND0+g1NgwJAw+m=-WwmgAAO3jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>
Cc: Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cdc12f46d7ff04befc46c7
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset()
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--14dae9cdc12f46d7ff04befc46c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>wr=
ote:

> 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.


albeit I'm not laruence, but I also supported the idea to keep consistency
across the allowed params of empty and isset.
here is my reasoning:
- both isset and empty are language constructs, which many people use
almost interchangeability, changing one of them in a way that the same
expression works with one of them, but blows up with a parse error seems
wrong to me.
- maybe you think that isset doesn't really make sense with expressions,
but don't forget that this patch would also allow constants to be used with
empty/isset, and imo isset(some_constant); would be useful and maybe more
straightforward for the people new to the language.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--14dae9cdc12f46d7ff04befc46c7--