Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79913 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40465 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2014 08:51:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Dec 2014 08:51:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=xinchen.h@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=laruence@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: xinchen.h@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.180 mail-lb0-f180.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.180] ([209.85.217.180:62659] helo=mail-lb0-f180.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 19/60-37394-E9E7A945 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 03:51:42 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l4so6418009lbv.39 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZnNGsk2a0liNGoSBnQu5kbD73u/tuOSc/ISKEk0tavc=; b=d6fKmMSXYYcTWiPowFvoz99/anTyLx8CCuOCzvcutB+sz3PF9IEMdUdupBOgGO6jo9 EQWl+0KgwaxNPdOZNYiBDle8TNd563SPBCvmjs/7BbseS67j3TrLatf7EbCiIwdlpOdV Ii3nB72db1rAYavqYaVjjLIFkRKKJ1z6umkawkYjYAKlnVbmm2Jvyx3uJlBIJJEBQfc+ IGuBDOBtn7K8NjPMmY0H16/5YJmoD9opp8kIxHIqwUS158e7cdg8f1qG5DJaL9K/8bhq ahbt4rQI+mHg6TgikA6AfD9j+aapBN+fi6ICFju+Z9sryfUY6YGvz8iZ7K0tYkcRM10e Us8A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNk/0RyO5giepWPZvm/m4FwajuQsizj6KIQwvzLn/cNz4UpkkH14KGiX0SSLgkmlM1RXIXqH1VCmfWOlpoL5juGQ2aWjVp18GVcjyvOj1SrKtz0kPQPrLJ+Y5JPT0HN8lvjdBJqQfkt9Jnj0408SfbQJaK4w== X-Received: by 10.112.159.129 with SMTP id xc1mr32989412lbb.24.1419411099037; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com. [209.85.215.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zo3sm6496119lbb.10.2014.12.24.00.51.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id gq15so6668097lab.4 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.6.8 with SMTP id w8mr33443769law.41.1419411097108; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.64.176 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:51:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <549A6D5A.6060307@gmail.com> References: <946C1B1D-30B8-4029-A5A1-73D515A017D8@ajf.me> <549A6D5A.6060307@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:51:16 +0800 Message-ID: To: Stanislav Malyshev Cc: Andrea Faulds , PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About SUCCESS/FAILURE From: laruence@php.net (Xinchen Hui) Hey: On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> But: return 0 and return FAILURE... which is simpler? > > It's equally simple to write, but FAILURE of course is way simpler to > understand when read. I can not agree with that since nowdays, false === 0, true === 1 is almost a common sense. thanks > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com -- Xinchen Hui @Laruence http://www.laruence.com/