Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84763 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 17581 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2015 08:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Mar 2015 08:34:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@beccati.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@beccati.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain beccati.com designates 176.9.114.167 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@beccati.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 176.9.114.167 spritz.beccati.com Received: from [176.9.114.167] ([176.9.114.167:60846] helo=mail.beccati.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/82-34457-FA2F3055 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 03:34:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 14272 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2015 08:34:52 -0000 Received: from home.beccati.com (HELO ?192.168.1.202?) (88.149.176.119) by mail.beccati.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2015 08:34:52 -0000 Message-ID: <5503F2A6.4050604@beccati.com> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:34:46 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Crypto Compress CC: PHP Developers Mailing List References: ,, <550287B1.3080001@googlemail.com> <5502A66A.5030706@beccati.com> <5503D5EB.4090502@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <5503D5EB.4090502@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Make empty() a Variadic From: php@beccati.com (Matteo Beccati) On 14/03/2015 07:32, Crypto Compress wrote: > Am 13.03.2015 um 09:57 schrieb Matteo Beccati: >> On 13/03/2015 07:46, Crypto Compress wrote: >>> how about two separate methods all_empty() and non[e]_empty()? >> >> How about empty() and full() ? >> Ok, that was a bad attempt as a joke, but please no ;) > > Hello Matteo, > > don't get your point. Are you against my naming suggestions or the > possibility to check many vars on emptiness? > There are these two groups with contrary expectations. What is the > downside to give both a proper solution? The "proper solution" you suggest adds two more functions and I think we plenty already. We can't make empty variadic because it's ambiguous? Fine, I think I can live with it. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/