Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60448
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <396c1a02d4e7195f2b89e26ace2276a6.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
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>
	<396c1a02d4e7195f2b89e26ace2276a6.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:10:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSy=7+oxT5cqZ6iU17Lknexc1GW9B6uFUvO+BMyCG4uDKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428c9ca64d4204bf3aad90
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d04428c9ca64d4204bf3aad90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Richard Lynch <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 2, 2012 4:43 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >>> empty() on the other hand, tests if something is empty, and only if
> >>> it
> >>> is empty. The result of an expression can be empty.
> >>>
> >>
> >> an expression can also have a value of null.
> >
> > And NULL is empty. No issue here.
>
> Expressions can also return "", 0, 0.0, "0", array()
>
> You really think those should all be empty?
>

Unless I'm missing something here, aren't all those things already
considered to be empty??  Here's what the PHP man page for empty() says:

The following things are considered to be empty:

   - *""* (an empty string)
   - *0* (0 as an integer)
   - *0.0* (0 as a float)
   - *"0"* (0 as a string)
   - *NULL*
   - *FALSE*
   - *array()* (an empty array)
   - *var $var;* (a variable declared, but without a value in a class)


If that's the way it already behaves, then why would keeping it that way
even be an issue?  If an expression returns any of those things, it's empty.

I've been following the debate and I'm still a bit unclear as to what the
benefit would be to allowing non-variables in isset().  I mean, as was
stated earlier, expressions are neither "set" nor "unset".  Furthermore, if
you were to assign a variable to any valid expression (empty or otherwise),
it would be considered "set".  Therefore, through simple deductive logic,
would an expression passed to isset() not, by definition, *always* return
TRUE if the expression itself is syntactically valid?  The answer seems to
be yes as far as I can tell.  And if that is the case, then what value is
there in allowing it if the return value is always the same no matter what?

--Kris

--f46d04428c9ca64d4204bf3aad90--