Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94870 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 50112 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2016 21:37:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Aug 2016 21:37:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:42023] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E7/A1-33134-22705A75 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:37:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 38154 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2016 21:37:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-qk0-f169.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@209.85.220.169) by 0 with ESMTPA; 5 Aug 2016 21:37:34 -0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id x185so82510758qkc.2 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:37:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouv0QNpfP0PGCLYwXUUSg+WpoN1ag0DArT3IstOI/26Dhr5ZJGKXF8MSSKEvm6Dtlgvpn4HIvJC6Gk3ogA== X-Received: by 10.55.190.199 with SMTP id o190mr15933326qkf.51.1470433049174; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:37:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.85.242 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 14:36:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <27c5add4-2c4c-bab1-6ca7-9c191917dd0e@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 06:36:48 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Christoph Becker Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding validate_var_array()/validate_input_array() towhich version? From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Christoph and all, On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Becker wrote: > > 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. Good suggestion! Users may confuse with assert() and filter_assert()... I don't mind changing function names at all. "assume" sounds to weak for me. "require" sounds better to me. assert_require_*() may be the best choice among - validate_*() - filter_assert_*() - filter_assume_*() - filter_require_*() Do you like/feel ok with filter_require_*()? If you have better suggestion, it is appreciated. If there isn't comment in a few days, I'll use filter_require_var() <- validate_var() filter_require_var_array() <- validate_var_array() filter_require_input() <- validate_input() filter_require_input_array() <- validate_input_array() Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net