Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66514 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60277 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2013 23:32:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2013 23:32:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.139 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.139 smtp139.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.139] ([67.192.241.139:38916] helo=smtp139.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F6/14-39658-F12D7315 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:32:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp30.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 02646348573; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:32:44 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp30.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id BCEF434851B; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 18:32:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5137D21C.1050907@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:32:44 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Weinand CC: PHP Mailing List Developers References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] unset(): return bool if the variable has existed From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > RFC updated. > > Any other comments about this RFC? Could you provide a use case for this - which practical value this has? It also still contains factually incorrect claim that unset() is a function and that there's some "inconsistency" in the fact that it does not return value. Also, it is not clear what false returned from unset() actually means - did it fail to unset the value (i.e., it is still set) or there was nothing to unset (i.e., it is still not set)? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227