Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88471
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.180 as permitted sender)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@php.net>,
 Stig Bakken <stig@stigbakken.com>
References: <CAKws9z27kVJ87Ur5Qo+ayYHPeeO=aYKpRHUV4TFBXX2iMcgO2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <8C74463E-DBA2-4015-8159-0B44D973387F@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55DE0907.6040904@gmail.com>
 <1F615BCD-1B9B-4C51-A210-869F1AA1F6E3@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55E5EBBF.6020803@gmail.com>
 <0BA3A129-D356-4781-B6DE-E2B5A7924AE2@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55E6EC36.6090301@gmail.com>
 <E1C02A1A-EB7C-40D9-8760-13627CC7BF85@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <9AF329EC-99A5-412D-A52B-432627A5520F@gmail.com>
 <6F4D91EE-B56E-4B83-B1AF-598C3F6897FC@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55F07BA4.2000204@gmail.com>
 <E8634CF1-C2B4-4C5A-8DDC-531D9599774B@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55F6B911.9080400@gmail.com>
 <96BE7F01-D04B-483B-B1A3-B45CED6DFCDC@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <55F6F08C.1020506@gmail.com>
 <0BEF6D82-CB5F-49F6-A3A4-3267924A0CDA@thesba.com> <56009C96.5090504@php.net>
 <56013228.50504@gmail.com> <5601E01E.6080606@php.net>
 <56027C79.9020404@gmail.com> <5602BFB3.7090707@php.net>
 <CABM2syvWMhiH-HE=BH=J7DTACsS_83VNt7K=-mKTkifgg+J=LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <560316E1.8070002@php.net>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <5603CB24.3080307@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:06:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <560316E1.8070002@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.1 - Address PHPSadness #28?
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

François Laupretre wrote on 23/09/2015 22:17:
> Le 23/09/2015 18:37, Stig Bakken a écrit :
>>
>>> If they start replacing calls to
>>> isset()/array_key_exists() with exists(), that's their choice and it 
>>> can
>>> only improve overall readability.
>>
>> The thing is, it won't really improve overall readability, because the
>> name exists() is still too vague. It may be obvious to the person who
>> wrote the code (at least for the first two weeks), then you're really
>> back into the same vagueness that isset() provides.
>
> I don't say it's more readable than isset(), I say that's more 
> readable than array_key_exists(). 

To be pedantic, you actually did say that, in the text quoted above: 
"replacing calls to isset() ... with exists() ... can only improve 
overall readability".

Regardless, Stig's point stands, that exists() is a very general name, 
and the proposed function definition is also very all-inclusive, leading 
to the risk of hard-to-understand code.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]