Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';
Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);
The implementation for this in PHP code is this:
Arg 1 = the variable to check for existence
Arg 2 = the default return value which is an empty string by default
function varset($var, $default = '')
{
return (isset($var) ? $var : $default);
}
However there is a slight issue with this approach. If notices are turned on
this code will generate a notice while i think it should not do that. But
perhaps this approach is "to short".
A slightly different implementation (and longer) prevents the notice:
Arg 1 = the array in which a given key should be checked for existence
Arg 2 = the key to check in the array from arg 1
Arg 3 = the default return value which is an empty string by default
function varset($arr, $key, $default = '')
{
return (isset($arr[$key]) ? $arr[$key] : $default);
}
where the call would be:
$var = varset($_GET, 'var');
I personally like both ways...
My proposal is to make this function a core php function in PHP 5.4. The
added benifit is obvious. People can, with this, use a way shorter notation
to validate if a given array element exists. Right now that needs to be done
with a ternary, filter_var or some other method (there are quite a few ways
to check for existence).
I tried to look in the PHP source to see if i could make a patch to add this
but i couldn't find the function that defines the isset function (i wanted
to base it on that). So a pointer to the right location would be nice (along
with docs that tell me what i all need to do to implement a new php
function). If someone else wants to make the implementation, please be my
guest :)
So, what do you think of this?
Regards,
Mark
Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);
It should be called var_set() - better on name space pollution.
However there is a slight issue with this approach. If notices are turned on
this code will generate a notice while i think it should not do that. But
perhaps this approach is "to short".
A slightly different implementation (and longer) prevents the notice:
If is is a language element (like isset()) then you can avoid this problem.
I do find a lot of code, in simple scripts, that does just that.
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list then the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:
$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h
Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);It should be called var_set() - better on name space pollution.
oke
However there is a slight issue with this approach. If notices are
turned on
this code will generate a notice while i think it should not do that. But
perhaps this approach is "to short".
A slightly different implementation (and longer) prevents the notice:If is is a language element (like isset()) then you can avoid this problem.
Could you explain that a bit more?
I do find a lot of code, in simple scripts, that does just that.
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list then
the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');
I might be missing the point here, but the way i understand it that can give
unexpected results.. since it returns the first element from an array in
your suggestion but that's not what you want to do.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information:
http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h
If is is a language element (like isset()) then you can avoid this problem.
Could you explain that a bit more?
It looks like a function but is not:
http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/function.isset.php
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list then
the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');I might be missing the point here, but the way i understand it that can give
unexpected results.. since it returns the first element from an array in
your suggestion but that's not what you want to do.
I mean that it checks $_GET['var'], then $_POST['var'] & returns the first of the two that is set
or 'default'.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list then the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');
If that is the usage, I would suggest coalesce() to be consistent with
the same concept in SQL. And you would not need a list as the first
argument. Just pass multiple arguments and return the first set value.
$var = var_set($_GET['var'], $_POST['var'], 'default');
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_%28SQL%29#COALESCE
Brian.
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list then
the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');
If that is the usage, I would suggest coalesce() to be consistent with
the same concept in SQL. And you would not need a list as the first
argument. Just pass multiple arguments and return the first set value.$var = var_set($_GET['var'], $_POST['var'], 'default');
Even better.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h
This discussion is equivalent to the one that we just had. Read the thread
"[PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator".
Also the "$var = var_set($_GET['var'], $_POST['var'], 'default');" syntax
you propose would be equivalent to (as per previous discussion):
$var = $_GET[?'var'] $: $_POST[?'var'] $: 'default';
(The syntax might also be [?'var'], ['var'?] or different).
It might be nice to extend it such that if the 1st argument is a list
then
the
first in the list which is set is returned, eg:$var = var_set(($_GET['var'], $_POST['var']), 'default');If that is the usage, I would suggest coalesce() to be consistent with
the same concept in SQL. And you would not need a list as the first
argument. Just pass multiple arguments and return the first set value.$var = var_set($_GET['var'], $_POST['var'], 'default');
Even better.
--
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information:
http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php
#include <std_disclaimer.h
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Hannes Landeholm landeholm@gmail.comwrote:
This discussion is equivalent to the one that we just had. Read the thread
"[PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator".
except that it wouldn't bring new syntax.
ps: please don't top post if everybody else does bottom or inline posting,
it's hard to follow.
Tyrael
function varset($arr, $key, $default = '') { return (isset($arr[$key])
? $arr[$key] : $default); }where the call would be:
$var = varset($_GET, 'var');I personally like both ways...
My proposal is to make this function a core php function in PHP 5.4.
The added benifit is obvious. People can, with this, use a way shorter
notation to validate if a given array element exists. Right now that
needs to be done with a ternary, filter_var or some other method
(there are quite a few ways to check for existence).I tried to look in the PHP source to see if i could make a patch to
add this but i couldn't find the function that defines the isset
function (i wanted to base it on that). So a pointer to the right
location would be nice (along with docs that tell me what i all need
to do to implement a new php function).
https://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/Zend/zend_language_parser.y?rev
ision=306938&view=markup
Look for "isset_variables:", then zend_do_isset_or_isempty
isset() lives in the parser and requires some advanced knowledge of the
opcodes (personally I'm not there yet)
So, what do you think of this?
I like the idea, it could also be called vardef() or var_default()
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron jbondc@openmv.comwrote:
function varset($arr, $key, $default = '') { return (isset($arr[$key])
? $arr[$key] : $default); }where the call would be:
$var = varset($_GET, 'var');I personally like both ways...
My proposal is to make this function a core php function in PHP 5.4.
The added benifit is obvious. People can, with this, use a way shorter
notation to validate if a given array element exists. Right now that
needs to be done with a ternary, filter_var or some other method
(there are quite a few ways to check for existence).I tried to look in the PHP source to see if i could make a patch to
add this but i couldn't find the function that defines the isset
function (i wanted to base it on that). So a pointer to the right
location would be nice (along with docs that tell me what i all need
to do to implement a new php function).https://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/Zend/zend_language_parser.y?rev
ision=306938&view=markupLook for "isset_variables:", then zend_do_isset_or_isempty
isset() lives in the parser and requires some advanced knowledge of the
opcodes (personally I'm not there yet)
Oh boy, i never ever did anything in the core PHP coding so i'm certainly
not likely to be able to understand all of that. (yet)
So, what do you think of this?
I like the idea, it could also be called vardef() or var_default()
@ the rest.
The list idea is nice, but i don't really see the added value for it.. Lets
keep it simple, oke :)
As for that other thread: "[PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on
short-ternary operator"
I don't really know much of it, but does that mean that my suggestion is
rejected even before i made an RFC for it?
Regards,
Mark
Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';
Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);The implementation for this in PHP code is this:
Arg 1 = the variable to check for existence
Arg 2 = the default return value which is an empty string by default
function varset($var, $default = '')
{
return (isset($var) ? $var : $default);
}
I proposed something similar over 5 years ago. It ain't gonna happen
because PHP language can't support it. The Zend engine needs to be
rewritten to remove the warnings and that's not something they are
volunteering to do no matter how much people want it.
http://markmail.org/message/yl26ebzcix35wtke
My proposal was called "filled" since it was the opposite of "empty"
which already existed. I extended the function to return the first
non-empty value or null if all values evaluated as empty.
You could use the function like this:
$x = filled($_GET['x'], $obj->something, $default, 'default');
It would return the first argument where !empty($arg) evaluates as TRUE.
There would need to be a companion function to check 'isset' opposite as
you have proposed.
Like I said, though, I don't think this can be done in the language
because I think they ran out of OPCODES and would have to tear apart the
whole PHP engine to support such a feature.
-- Dante
Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';
Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);The implementation for this in PHP code is this:
Arg 1 = the variable to check for existence
Arg 2 = the default return value which is an empty string by default
function varset($var, $default = '')
{
return (isset($var) ? $var : $default);
}I proposed something similar over 5 years ago. It ain't gonna happen because PHP language can't support it. The Zend engine needs to be rewritten to remove the warnings and that's not something they are volunteering to do no matter how much people want it.
http://markmail.org/message/yl26ebzcix35wtke
My proposal was called "filled" since it was the opposite of "empty" which already existed. I extended the function to return the first non-empty value or null if all values evaluated as empty.
You could use the function like this:
$x = filled($_GET['x'], $obj->something, $default, 'default');
It would return the first argument where !empty($arg) evaluates as TRUE.
There would need to be a companion function to check 'isset' opposite as you have proposed.
Like I said, though, I don't think this can be done in the language because I think they ran out of OPCODES and would have to tear apart the whole PHP engine to support such a feature.
-- Dante
--
Hi,
well, i did propose 2 possible ways although the second one is a
little longer but still clean and readable.
And the second one is certainly possible to implement!
Btw. i did look at the suggested core php code parts and even though i
can do nearly everything in php.. i have a hard time understanding how
the inner php parsing things actually work. There is no way i'm able
to make a patch for php.
Regards,
Mark
Hi,
This proposal is for the often called line like this:
$var = isset($_GET['var']) ? $_GET['var'] : '';
Only a shorter and imho a cleaner solution to get the same:
$var = varset($_GET['var']);The implementation for this in PHP code is this:
Arg 1 = the variable to check for existence
Arg 2 = the default return value which is an empty string by default
function varset($var, $default = '')
{
return (isset($var) ? $var : $default);
}I proposed something similar over 5 years ago. It ain't gonna happen because PHP language can't support it. The Zend engine needs to be rewritten to remove the warnings and that's not something they are volunteering to do no matter how much people want it.
http://markmail.org/message/yl26ebzcix35wtke
My proposal was called "filled" since it was the opposite of "empty" which already existed. I extended the function to return the first non-empty value or null if all values evaluated as empty.
You could use the function like this:
$x = filled($_GET['x'], $obj->something, $default, 'default');
It would return the first argument where !empty($arg) evaluates as TRUE.
There would need to be a companion function to check 'isset' opposite as you have proposed.
Like I said, though, I don't think this can be done in the language because I think they ran out of OPCODES and would have to tear apart the whole PHP engine to support such a feature.
-- Dante
--
Hi,
well, i did propose 2 possible ways although the second one is a
little longer but still clean and readable.
And the second one is certainly possible to implement!Btw. i did look at the suggested core php code parts and even though i
can do nearly everything in php.. i have a hard time understanding how
the inner php parsing things actually work. There is no way i'm able
to make a patch for php.Regards,
Mark--
Hi,
As Hannes said, the other thread discussing this feature (although the
subject line may suggest otherwise) is still active, so please move
this discussion there:
"[PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator"
Cheers,
Arpad
My proposal was called "filled" since it was the opposite of "empty"
which already existed. I extended the function to return the first
non-empty value or null if all values evaluated as empty.You could use the function like this:
$x = filled($_GET['x'], $obj->something, $default, 'default');
Like I said, though, I don't think this can be done in the language
because I think they ran out of OPCODES and would have to tear apart
the whole PHP engine to support such a feature.
That's not the reason, there's 127 / 256 opcodes.
So far "filled", "varset", "coallesce", "ifsetor" or any operator would likely have to manipulate opcodes.
http://php.net/~helly/ze2-ifsetor-20040901.diff.txt
From what I understand, zeev and andi are strongly opposed to adding a new opcode. I'm sure they have their reasons.
Maybe there's another approach where ~ E_NONE could be passed to zend_error
ZEND_API void zend_error(int type, const char format, ...) / {{{ */
{
if(type & E_NONE)
return;
}
Then modify to zend_vm_gen.php to pass E_NONE if within 'ifsetor'.
Either way, there's a solution for it, I think the debate is over how it's implemented.
-- Worth reading
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ifsetor#rejected_features
-- Why?
I think it simply boils down to this:
- PHP developers want a function for it.
Derick
I proposed something similar over 5 years ago. It ain't gonna happen
because PHP language can't support it.
It supports it. Several functions allow you to pass in variables that
are not set and don't throw an error. Not sure what you are talking about.
Brian.
I proposed something similar over 5 years ago. It ain't gonna happen
because PHP language can't support it.
It supports it. Several functions allow you to pass in variables that are
not set and don't throw an error. Not sure what you are talking about.
?
which one?
I guess that you are talking about the language constructs like isset and
empty.
they aren't functions.
Tyrael
which one?
I guess that you are talking about the language constructs like isset and
empty.
they aren't functions.
settype() for one.
Brian.
which one?
I guess that you are talking about the language constructs like isset and
empty.
they aren't functions.
settype()for one.Brian.
yeah you are right, passing arguments by reference doesn't trigger the
notice, but I'm not sure that it is applicable in our case.
Tyrael
yeah you are right, passing arguments by reference doesn't trigger the
notice, but I'm not sure that it is applicable in our case.
Yeah, it wouldn't help. For instance, 42 or "default" can't be passed by
reference, so you couldn't actually provide a default value to
coalesce() if you implemented it like that, which would make it pretty
useless. :-)
Ben.
Any idea on how to progress with this idea?
I certainly would like to see it in PHP 5.4 but i don't have the knowledge
nor time to figure out the php internals (in C...)
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Ben Schmidt
mail_ben_schmidt@yahoo.com.auwrote:
yeah you are right, passing arguments by reference doesn't trigger the
notice, but I'm not sure that it is applicable in our case.
Yeah, it wouldn't help. For instance, 42 or "default" can't be passed by
reference, so you couldn't actually provide a default value to
coalesce() if you implemented it like that, which would make it pretty
useless. :-)Ben.