Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94776 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27952 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2016 10:08:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Aug 2016 10:08:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.15 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.15.15] ([212.227.15.15:60456] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1A/60-24891-5AF1F975 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 06:08:38 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.103] ([217.82.227.154]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKqOW-1bUA9C2rPk-0001Mm; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 12:08:34 +0200 To: Yasuo Ohgaki , "internals@lists.php.net" References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:08:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Ehxj82MJYXluTppeuHW4or1Zx9wnMRRamZPGyipZwnWbNv9oPIC wMgHQaNzJV/Z1Gshtv/pdZ421+7qoC2Tq3m5QSGbbEHUfI9qwhlU3sfqV0eaZXtaJ7FJ0h8 qNyyhZYpyj2LB1DLI6jnIjSMNmhf877eTuF8qreX77SfVjx+BkDecfChEfwlQ1RT5jZPxWp ayvJIjxpHs4kTA7KPeRGA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:mtXfrMjDdUo=:4Qvj7lC3+xqHbgoySgNoY6 24Hg8YGJyj8TXA7+T4BrYn6UVEVPDQzZC+SDva2qj+217LUQs392cBDvHsoO3BOHtso95k22Z cM6Z6bA49LEk4M36wARAhjK687Ur4egW8DamW8ihUVrY59EwLEGPp84I6JSFHrwMvNw5//T1r KkX8Elr3Ou3pAeXBqrlsHPKJS4iJz3sspUfLrmS1s6GKRv2wax27k+/cdCAYRO0yzAo5aafbd OouYJDnzWQg2eqLldrL0N82+5861XMxfCDRvXrhTz1tv9+Ph2ECZpOpUDIWBUDvySZXVI8kdL GP4Bj+qQSi+PkWPSfUJNTBUaZoAVAT2ow32jOlpW3F1ipk2hTiZEi+J5Iy4DvWCBIGBlBaAiA Xq+/M8na1cP2lr6nHOWFUyLRk5Ul+PvwhPjS9VYMm3ikVnRSemH3/zQure9irCaxuVI1Se7cj Vp8erjpzC8XkKcC5ONqVqHunnlwOYzd7Q/+Wcl2aNRxu5r4eWn852reZ0fyvwabADybzda+K2 AtgR5UN1N8Ysn7LnDzrx0IqG/mym5lhV2kYMPT6BsBJ2MWelhTfVd3z9EuxWlmloRPexNro1Y +m0kxiuUP4rb9y0hGFN2r08sMYPMnibE1TYpqKXJylnEtI1b0D7WVJQad6GnY+mYtepCj9Jv4 GeG92A7rEVYfiI2SMI5EYgpCyM/SerFRzO19tzcfnuXwQu0FFatxzGVDf++KgmFRsOmVAeTHl XtfEQbP5OEK90U5ZcNZlDmbGz3IA0g337f4B+lGJrVMr+fXUHjR3F1kWJtBX6Iev7x6LQdFdn G3fib4l Subject: Re: Adding validate_var_array()/validate_input_array() to which version? From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) On 01.08.2016 at 10:23, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > We have filter_var_array()/filter_input_array() currently. They are > designed as filter functions. i.e. They convert offending elements to > NULL/FALSE. Therefore, it's difficult to validate and see if inputs > are valid with specified specifications. Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't a comparision of the original array with the filtered array already suffice, see ? -- Christoph M. Becker