Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82604
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: reeze.xia@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1E15BAAB-C8FC-49A9-B73F-E0E7DEFA208D@ajf.me>
References: <DUB113-W52CAFBF648C8CE4A764E75F9220@phx.gbl> <54DDA797.4030501@php.net>
 <F74DA323-CB58-4CA5-A75A-9D36F4138F07@ajf.me> <1E15BAAB-C8FC-49A9-B73F-E0E7DEFA208D@ajf.me>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:38:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CAG1chooZ0myaGPHn7KBa1Mh77JabzBULWSaVkbEHd13j7g146g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>, Thomas Punt <tpunt@hotmail.co.uk>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7e12142f12050ef6ad65
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [DISCUSSION] Make empty() a Variadic
From: reeze@php.net (reeze)

--f46d043c7e12142f12050ef6ad65
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

On 13 February 2015 at 19:31, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> > On 13 Feb 2015, at 11:16, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> >> On 13 Feb 2015, at 07:28, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/02/15 19:55, Thomas Punt wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to propose to make empty() a variadic, where if any
> >>> arguments passed in are considered empty, then false is returned
> >>
> >> Should that read "if any arguments passed in are considered *NOT* empty,
> >> then false is returned"?
> >
> > No, I think it's correct, if confusingly phrased. I believe Thomas is
> proposing variadic empty() where TRUE is returned if any of its arguments
> are empty, otherwise FALSE. So, empty($a, $b, $c) would be equivalent to
> empty($a) || empty($b) || empty($c), much like isset($a, $b, $c) is
> equivalent to (and implemented as) isset($a) && isset($b) && isset($c).
>
> Wait, I think I made a mistake.
>
> * Thomas proposed "if any arguments passed in are considered empty, then
> false is returned", i.e. !(empty($a) || empty($b) || empty($c)) if his
> words are taken literally. This doesn't make much sense, I think it was a
> mistake.
> * You suggested he may have meant "if any arguments passed in are
> considered *NOT* empty, then false is returned", i.e. (empty($a) &&
> empty($b) && empty($c))
> * I assume Thomas actually meant "where if any arguments passed in are
> considered empty, then *true* is returned", i.e. (empty($a) || empty($b) ||
> empty($c))
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> I think the || behaviour is the most useful, as it's the analogue of
> isset's. So !empty($a, $b, $c) would work similarly to isset($a, $b, $c),
> and similarly, !isset($a, $b, $c) would work similarly to empty($a, $b, $c).
>

For example: echo $a, $b, $c, & empty($a, $b, $c), they are treated equal,

if the empty() means if any one of them is empty then result is TRUE, the
advantage of it disappeared:

if (empty($a, $b, $c)) {
   // you might want to check it again.
   if (empty($a)) {
      //blah blah.
   } else if (empty($b)) {

   }
}


>
> But that's just my opinion. :)
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Reeze Xia
http://reeze.cn

--f46d043c7e12142f12050ef6ad65--