Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60437
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4FA23115.9030807@lsces.co.uk>
References: <CAF+90c_N7fhQG_62pEgw_qm2LTDJf=ie0tN1PQVq4XNpMEYcmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+Jdn7hS8mszbEhhFtthL7hisG-SaXDahzKb9MhY2ZjOWLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpdAmkEzh9uek2McmdOCkVOWNuHo6kUsFYizGXbRVZ20Dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU4VF7y3AJEYmPND-dGuWMrU2NCsXRTBF2p+czazrR33nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5wtv07jLHE=_HzPAJHb-OivB=FdROcyh7dPJn8Tt1dVw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7kv9X0K5kExXOg3nQBqLxXzGq5hc5DRq5dVj7cVdJ55w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAyV7nGi6EvEf_tjFp_chn771+5cn-Lqt6mQSDQn2fD61nsAiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FA23115.9030807@lsces.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 20:10:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CACwt+Je6vc4_BCEFaAmEx=xoTYi922kLMNz0B6cxdHYJXUDDXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset()
From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT)

2012/5/3 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>:
> 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. =C2=A0Sure, 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 functi=
on
> 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 wh=
y
> would there be any logical reason for using isset or empty to check a
> function return?

Use case:

// Function definition:
function getFriends()
{
    // SQL SELECT or Fetching from XML or Fetching from LDAP or ...
    return $resultsAsArray;
}

// Looping on results:
foreach ( getFriends() as $friend )
{
    echo $friend["name"], "\n";
}

// Case where the results are actually not iterated:
$amIAssocial =3D empty( getFriends() );

1. It it not wrong to return "nothing", like empty sets (empty
arrays), it is a valid case.
2. Returning "false" in the case there is no "results" would be a bad
idea: not only you would have to put a condition in the function
definition, but you would also require all iterations (e.g. foreach)
to be encapsulated in a condition statement to prevent looping on
"false".