Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60427 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1853 invoked from network); 3 May 2012 07:17:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 May 2012 07:17:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 213.123.20.131 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.123.20.131 c2bthomr13.btconnect.com Received: from [213.123.20.131] ([213.123.20.131:9443] helo=mail.btconnect.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 46/B2-18347-71132AF4 for ; Thu, 03 May 2012 03:17:44 -0400 Received: from host81-138-11-136.in-addr.btopenworld.com (EHLO _10.0.0.5_) ([81.138.11.136]) by c2bthomr13.btconnect.com with ESMTP id HIF78442; Thu, 03 May 2012 08:17:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FA23115.9030807@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:17:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4FA23115.003B, actions=tag X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.4.24.151515:17:7.944, ip=81.138.11.136, rules=__MOZILLA_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, URI_ENDS_IN_PHP, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_MAILTO, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_1000_1099, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr13.btconnect.com X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020C.4FA23115.00E7:SCFSTAT14830815,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset() From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Anthony Ferrara wrote: > I voted for the ability to use an expression for isset() as well, > since I agree with Ferenc, it's a matter of consistency. Sure, the > use-case for isset() is definitely weaker than for empty(), but at the > same token they are definitely related... I just can't help feeling that it is the wrong use of both. If the function is returning a value, then it's returning a value that needs to be used somewhere so the work flow handles that. If the function returns nothing instead that just seems wrong and needs to be handled better. I'm used to getting back 'false' if the function failed and just check for that so why would there be any logical reason for using isset or empty to check a function return? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php