Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79903
Return-Path: <laruence@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 16680 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2014 04:55:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 24 Dec 2014 04:55:11 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=laruence@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=laruence@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.44 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: laruence@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.44 mail-pa0-f44.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.44] ([209.85.220.44:33297] helo=mail-pa0-f44.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id E8/D0-10609-E274A945 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 23:55:11 -0500
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id et14so9315526pad.17
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:55:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
        bh=DTbUVz7U7CkBB1GP7K1igBZcjclpefpTCTm0glmY8fU=;
        b=wJph6XZnVeXfWsR89SH+NxhX+Q2gvp0U47zLXUKsoY79rY8mG34zq1QyUqWNFoNA8P
         boiNxw/mAfniEPp7dYD1mYdyRRg4t1M6zyi20UJtHyc1DsKs4SCU6d1nzjouxaIehtNw
         ntbt9mhFU72iMEibf2rh810jejulnlfpaH7Np9u+FDt0JrRp5cn2OHCQvaIA6YObuuec
         mbGjjH0nqadnYc9LsOH86s+qrvly9rVBI8bTOB9UUMkg6ALdfOBXQ00byj7H0Lw2fRrO
         +IOZ3DRg4BJ0cXUpPL4XIsujSeRrVKEYCxOIFF9ojfbbW7aua8TPx5IurOJM6TyGLBXE
         uzdQ==
X-Received: by 10.70.61.130 with SMTP id p2mr50842227pdr.0.1419396907397;
        Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.168.131.234] ([117.136.38.168])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fn5sm21470186pdb.55.2014.12.23.20.55.04
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B440)
In-Reply-To: <549A45BD.9050304@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:55:02 +0800
Cc: Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <50C312FD-B626-4CDF-B6E5-7EB625C28214@gmail.com>
References: <CABBJUpdWefmJAYK7rmwJ09kEVRvdLV8ruLJuLJMyM7W3Z8Z2Jw@mail.gmail.com> <549A45BD.9050304@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About SUCCESS/FAILURE
From: laruence@gmail.com (Xinchen Hui)

Hey


> On Dec 24, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
>> Hey:
>>=20
>>   We use SUCCESS/FAILURE as return value  in some APIs, but use
>> 0/1(false/true) in others.
>>=20
>>   I'd like to remove SUCCESS/FAILURE at all, use 0/1 instead..
>>=20
>>   what do you think?
>=20
> I think it would make reading code harder. Why do it - is there any
> benefit in it? SUCCESS/FAILURE is a good way to indicate - well, success
> and failure. Replacing it with meaningless numbers would make code
> harder to read and harder to write without mistakes.
I think if(func()) is better, more readeable than if(func() =3D=3D success)

Thanks
> --=20
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com