Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94851
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender)
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@php.net>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAGa2bXa8Oj=xi6ZUKYFe5XXuhZvOL6JT=31QHoq8EG-9veGDBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <nnu4fj$cul$1@blaine.gmane.org>
 <CAGa2bXZrtf1jy_W4Dzs72mxs9kmXx5586jbagjHRop3uzcuFYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <nnv8rf$24e$1@blaine.gmane.org>
 <CAGa2bXZh1BP48oM+AHzB9Yb4r5+B+W8WDOU-KEsVe+N4KHza4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <27c5add4-2c4c-bab1-6ca7-9c191917dd0e@gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXbDxcYnZFgJ2PfVdgWXAAzSnUWpKM1aHeVmYavJisS7Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXaSDE9ChEKVdjdm-yWa+ie620YFymTKkdWXmyxgwqrUOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a56ec32c-3772-2714-8fd7-e3d4eb59d3d9@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:17:04 +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: <CAGa2bXaSDE9ChEKVdjdm-yWa+ie620YFymTKkdWXmyxgwqrUOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding validate_var_array()/validate_input_array()
 towhich version?
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker)

On 05.08.2016 at 02:15, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:

> Pierre suggested the functions should be named "filter_*" and I agree.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>> Input validation is like assertion shouldn't fail.
> 
> How about
> 
> filter_assert_var()              <- validate_var()
> filter_assert_var_array()     <- validate_var_array()
> filter_assert_input()           <- validate_input()
> filter_assert_input_array()  <- validate_input_array()
> 
> It seems better than
> 
> filter_validate_*()
> 
> to me. These names encourage users to use them for input assertion(validation).
> 
> Any other good names?

I think the names are okay, but it should be pointed out that they are
not related to assert() (particularly, that they are not affected by the
assert.* ini directives).  Maybe "assume" or "require" instead of
"assert" would therefore be better in this regard.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker