Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72239
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXYLkvdPXGcC=G93EKQPUBxCCKLcx-FHUK3Kt8NasD5Cvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52EE2B66.4040005@pthreads.org>
	<CAGa2bXYJT+qXRXinxd_hqgPG0UfWkvCH0f6sgLyzSjM2X57j0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtuQzAt_FaZwQpfJM9ed1JJSQAWb2bgP=R+hQfnVkZxZLpREw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXa5zON7-A6LST7yyWBrJ8ZKP7eeSSiQM-DpqNbOnrdveA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F157BE.3020804@ajf.me>
	<CAGa2bXafeGSQ1X7TUsQYnnASqyBPjyT1nh=yPM9LdbW3nY3Gmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F15FD6.7060901@ajf.me>
	<CAGa2bXZvEN0KULW3MBR6y+wFKDiHOw7dXqsBeMZVYNNAXXYg2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXYLkvdPXGcC=G93EKQPUBxCCKLcx-FHUK3Kt8NasD5Cvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:21:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-TK25XtgNz7DamgYZP6aNYgoXfuDimErZARhci8W1qgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d5a0c59f4704f1a2c5c6
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: RFC: expectations/assertions
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--047d7b33d5a0c59f4704f1a2c5c6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>
> > php > assert('function() {return FALSE;}');
> > php > assert('function() {return TRUE;}');
> >
> > It does not work, but
> >
> > php > assert(eval('function() {return FALSE;};'));
> >
> > Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1
> >
> > so closure in eval() works. I don't see reason not to allow closure
> > directly.
> > It only seems inconsistent to me.
> >
>
> Added this to inconsistent behaviors RFC to track.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/inconsistent-behaviors#assert
>

There is a difference between f() and 'f'. The former is a function call,
the latter a callback. The eval-behavior non-withstanding assert is
essentially if (!$arg1) { error($arg2); }. So if (!f()) { ... } makes a lot
of sense, but if (!function() {}) {} makes zero sense. Again, function() {}
only creates a callback, but does *not* run it. To run it, you'd need
something like (function(){})().

There is no inconsistency here. Allowing callables in general is not
compatible with the existing string-eval mode and the expectation that
arrays will assert true if they are non-empty. Adding only closures, *that*
is inconsistent.

Nikita

--047d7b33d5a0c59f4704f1a2c5c6--