Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Hi! It seems that there are no consensus about this feature so... *if in doubt, leave it out.* I don't see any serious objections to it except comments from people that seem not really understand what this feature is about and complain about bad code which has nothing to do with the actual feature proposed. I am all for consensus, but I have very hard time accepting it as a valid objection, sorry. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Em Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:04:36 +0100, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com escreveu: It seems that there are no consensus about this feature so... *if in doubt, leave it out.* I don't see any serious objections to it except comments from people that seem not really understand what this feature is about and complain about bad code which has nothing to do with the actual feature proposed. I am all for consensus, but I have very hard time accepting it as a valid objection, sorry. I agree that argument is absurd... Even Freemarker, which is rather unforgiving with missing values (see http://freemarker.org/docs/app_faq.html#faq_picky_about_missing_vars ), provides this in the form unsafe_expr!default_expr. It's not about writing sloppy code, it's precisely the opposite -- identifying clearly and succinctly the regions where missing values are expected. -- Gustavo Lopes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:09 PM Chris Stockton wrote: My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain. Laziness should not be confused with a desire to write clean readable code quickly. :) I have use for this, it's a nice clean solution to a simple problem. FWIW, +1. Best Regards Mike Robinson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Considering that the main impetus for these threads is to write code
that does not generate the notice regarding missing variables or
indices, neither isset() or empty() will provide that completely.
If a variable is declared, but assigned null, it is not set and it is
empty. But so what. The variable exists and will not generate a notice
if access is attempted. No suppression of the non existent notice is
necessary.
The issue is one of undefined variables and indices. That's what the
E_NOTICE says ...
Notice: Undefined variable
Notice: Undefined index
To directly detect the presence of a key, then array_key_exists() is
the function that covers the requirement.
Global variables are easily detectable using array_key_exists($key, $GLOBALS);
Properties for an object ... property_exists().
For locally scoped variables, the function get_defined_vars() can be
combined with array_key_exists().
But the obvious overhead of having to extract all the variables into a
temp array is probably going to be a performance no-no.
The script below (and in [1] in case the formatting all goes wonky),
demonstrates this.
Ideally, a construct that specifically detects if a variable is
declared, irrespective of its value, would be the perfect solution as
this could be combined with isset() or empty() as the developer needs.
Richard.
[1] http://pastebin.com/qLNYtfAw
?php
error_reporting(-1);
function report($desc, $isset, $empty, $defined) {
return
$desc .
' isset() = ' . ($isset ? 'true ' : 'false') .
' empty() = ' . ($empty ? 'true ' : 'false') .
' defined = ' . ($defined ? 'true ' : 'false') .
PHP_EOL;
}
function tester() {
// $undefined_variable = '';
$defined_variable_null_value = null;
$defined_variable_value = 'non null variable';
$array = array(
// 'undefined_key' = '',
'defined_key_null_value' = null,
'defined_key_value' = 'non null element',
);
$defined_vars = get_defined_vars();
echo
report('Undefined variable ',
isset($undefined_variable),
empty($undefined_variable),
array_key_exists('undefined_variable', $defined_vars)),
report('Defined variable null value ',
isset($defined_variable_null_value),
empty($defined_variable_null_value),
array_key_exists('defined_variable_null_value', $defined_vars)),
report('Defined variable non-null value ',
isset($defined_variable_value),
empty($defined_variable_value),
array_key_exists('defined_variable_value', $defined_vars)),
report('Undefined key ',
isset($array['undefined_key']),
empty($array['undefined_key']),
array_key_exists('undefined_key', $array)),
report('Undefined key null value',
isset($array['defined_key_null_value']),
empty($array['defined_key_null_value']),
array_key_exists('defined_key_null_value', $array)),
report('Undefined key non-null value',
isset($array['defined_key_value']),
empty($array['defined_key_value']),
array_key_exists('defined_key_value', $array));
}
tester();
?
--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
On 12 April 2011 12:33, Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com wrote: [1] http://pastebin.com/qLNYtfAw Updated to http://pastebin.com/cqSEcGpN to include 0 and '' values. The output is ... Undefined variableisset() = false empty() = true defined = false Defined variable null value isset() = false empty() = true defined = true Defined variable 0isset() = true empty() = true defined = true Defined variable non-null value isset() = true empty() = false defined = true Undefined key isset() = false empty() = true defined = false Undefined key null value isset() = false empty() = true defined = true Undefined key non-null value isset() = true empty() = false defined = true Undefined key 0 value isset() = true empty() = true defined = true Attempting to access any variable where defined = false would be the only place the E_NOTICE is generated. -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Am 12.04.2011 13:33, schrieb Richard Quadling: Notice: Undefined variable Notice: Undefined index To me, these two notices are totally different in severity, but that may be because of how i write my code. I'd like to be able to get rid of the Undefined index Notice in a nice, clean, readable way, because that does not bother me (in my style of code). I do wanna be notified if i am using an undefined variable, as that implies something wrong on a more basic level. $x = isset($x)?$x:'default x'; I don't want a construct for this, because I was either lazy or made a mistake when I did not define $x initially. -1 $x = isset($_GET['x'])?$_GET['x']:'default x'; I can see the use for an alternative construct for this though, but it's not really a pressing matter to me. +0.5 But that is just me and my code. Lars -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
@ is not convenient since it turns off error reporting for all errors. I don't know how many times I've silenced a notice and got a blank page in my face as a thank you for accidentally silencing that fatal error too. Silent is reserved for the purpose of the silence operator though @ so using that as a keyword for something else would be confusing. It just struck me that the ~real~ problem is that sometimes you want array access that should define undefined indexes as being null (a good placeholder for this purpose). How about (instead of the previously proposed ?? and isnotempty and whatnot) simply changing the array access syntax to simply allow an optional ? operator at the end signaling that the condition where the index isn't defined isn't unexpected? For example: $value = isset($arr[foo])? $arr[foo]: null; $value = isset($arr[$foo])? $arr[$foo]: null; would be replaced with: (respectively) $value = $arr[foo?]; $value = $arr[$foo?]; it would also worked chained: $value = $arr[foo?][bar][baz?] (if [foo] doesn't exist value will be null.. if [foo] exists [foo][bar] is expected to exist but [foo][bar][baz] may or may not exist... if not, value will once again be null) This way it would only apply to array access which was a +1 for some. This could also be extended too replace null with something different (by allowing an expression after the ? like null or foo . bar) but I think careful use-case research should be done to determine if it's really needed first... I realize this partially collides with the use of ? so it would be more difficult to implement but it's far from impossible.. it just requires a little ahead-parsing in brackets [] to know if the ? is a ternary if or if it's a not exists is not undefined operator (is the : missing or not?). Otherwise ?? could simply be used instead or a completely different operator... ~Hannes On 11 April 2011 04:47, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: Hi! @. Note however it does not exactly turn off the warning, only changes it to not reported. It's still generated and can be picked up by handlers, for example. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
I think another problem with using @ is that it is done by the caller, not the callee, so it doesn't allow functions like issetor() to be implemented in userland without expecting every caller to do pass the variable while silencing errors. I also don't think the inconvenience is restricted to arrays. I frequently use the idiom isset(X)?X:Y with X simply being a variable. It's not just about silencing a notice, but about providing an alternative/default value. If doing the suppression of undefined notices be better if the ? was put after the opening square bracket, thereby removing the ambiguity (which I think would be more troublesome than you think)? $array[?foo] Ben. On 11/04/11 6:10 PM, Hannes Landeholm wrote: @ is not convenient since it turns off error reporting for all errors. I don't know how many times I've silenced a notice and got a blank page in my face as a thank you for accidentally silencing that fatal error too. Silent is reserved for the purpose of the silence operator though @ so using that as a keyword for something else would be confusing. It just struck me that the ~real~ problem is that sometimes you want array access that should define undefined indexes as being null (a good placeholder for this purpose). How about (instead of the previously proposed ?? and isnotempty and whatnot) simply changing the array access syntax to simply allow an optional ? operator at the end signaling that the condition where the index isn't defined isn't unexpected? For example: $value = isset($arr[foo])? $arr[foo]: null; $value = isset($arr[$foo])? $arr[$foo]: null; would be replaced with: (respectively) $value = $arr[foo?]; $value = $arr[$foo?]; it would also worked chained: $value = $arr[foo?][bar][baz?] (if [foo] doesn't exist value will be null.. if [foo] exists [foo][bar] is expected to exist but [foo][bar][baz] may or may not exist... if not, value will once again be null) This way it would only apply to array access which was a +1 for some. This could also be extended too replace null with something different (by allowing an expression after the ? like null or foo . bar) but I think careful use-case research should be done to determine if it's really needed first... I realize this partially collides with the use of ? so it would be more difficult to implement but it's far from impossible.. it just requires a little ahead-parsing in brackets [] to know if the ? is a ternary if or if it's a not exists is not undefined operator (is the : missing or not?). Otherwise ?? could simply be used instead or a completely different operator... ~Hannes On 11 April 2011 04:47, Stas Malyshevsmalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: Hi! @. Note however it does not exactly turn off the warning, only changes it to not reported. It's still generated and can be picked up by handlers, for example. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
If doing the suppression of undefined notices be better if the ? was put after
the
opening square bracket, thereby removing the ambiguity (which I think would be
more troublesome than you think)? $array[?foo]
I suppose a non-array-specific version would be to put it after the $.
$?variable
$?array['foo']['bar']
I wonder if you could even use : with this syntax.
$?variable:default
$?array['foo']['bar']:default
Perhaps using it in function definitions is something to consider, too,
for a callee-specified undefined-notice-silencing mechanism.
function foo($?arg) {
}
Doesn't work for the variable arguments case, though, without resorting
to something IMHO ugly/hard-to-read-and-understand like:
function foo(?) {
}
It's another idea to throw in the mix, though.
I do think the 'silent' modifier that was the original suggestion in
this thread is worth further thought. It may well allow userland
functions to be developed, which might be a benefit.
I personally, though, think a modified ternary operator like the
proposed ??: or the syntax above, is better.
Ben.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
On Apr 10 21:22:58, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
The problem with implementing ifsetor, filled, or ?? in userland
is that the not set or undefined warning is fired before the
variable is passed to the underlying function/method.
Is it possible to add a modifier that turns off warnings for undefined
variables whenever that specific method is called? Something like:
Short answer is no. See below.
class Utility {
public silent function filled() {
$args = func_get_args();
foreach ($args as $arg) {
if (!empty($arg)) { return $arg; }
}
return false;
}
}
$x = Utility::filled($my_undef, $x['undef'], $nosuch, 'default');
The modifier silent will turn all undefined or not isset() variables
into NULL values when being passed to the method and no warnings will be
issued.
This is not really possible without some major changes. You've to
understand that arguments are evaluated before the function/method call.
The notices are thus emited before even considering the function/method
call.
This is exactly why isset and empty are not functions, but language
constructs, so that they can work with variables in a special way.
Then, we can build our own damn functions as we see fit without the fuss.
-- Dante
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few threads I've
seen going across to
silence notices have a common theme - I wanna be a lazier coder.
Which is fine - set the PHP error level to not show them.
But don't ask the engine to be rewritten to encourage bad coding practices
which failing to properly initialize variables is a prime example of. It's
this sort of thinking that got register_globals and magic_quotes put into
the language no doubt. In the long run it's an extremely bad idea and needs
to be avoided.
-1
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Etienne Kneuss etie...@immomigsa.chwrote:
On Apr 10 21:22:58, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
The problem with implementing ifsetor, filled, or ?? in userland
is that the not set or undefined warning is fired before the
variable is passed to the underlying function/method.
Is it possible to add a modifier that turns off warnings for undefined
variables whenever that specific method is called? Something like:
Short answer is no. See below.
class Utility {
public silent function filled() {
$args = func_get_args();
foreach ($args as $arg) {
if (!empty($arg)) { return $arg; }
}
return false;
}
}
$x = Utility::filled($my_undef, $x['undef'], $nosuch, 'default');
The modifier silent will turn all undefined or not isset() variables
into NULL values when being passed to the method and no warnings will be
issued.
This is not really possible without some major changes. You've to
understand that arguments are evaluated before the function/method call.
The notices are thus emited before even considering the function/method
call.
This is exactly why isset and empty are not functions, but language
constructs, so that they can work with variables in a special way.
Then, we can build our own damn functions as we see fit without the fuss.
-- Dante
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Le 11/04/2011 19:17, Michael Morris a écrit : But don't ask the engine to be rewritten to encourage bad coding practices which failing to properly initialize variables is a prime example of. It's this sort of thinking that got register_globals and magic_quotes put into the language no doubt. In the long run it's an extremely bad idea and needs to be avoided. +1 Use APL if PHP is too verbose for you (good luck :-) ) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Hi! I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common theme - I wanna be a lazier coder. Laziness is a virtue for a coder :) At least, when it goes to avoid unnecessary work - in this example, boilerplate code. Which is fine - set the PHP error level to not show them. This is not good enough - not showed errors are still generated and are quite expensive. But don't ask the engine to be rewritten to encourage bad coding practices which failing to properly initialize variables is a prime example of. It's The case we're dealing with is specifically about providing resolution for the case when the value is not initialized and the default value is provided. It is about making good code easier to write ($foo[$bar] ?? $baz instead of isset($foo[$bar])?$foo[$bar]:$bar). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote: I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common theme - I wanna be a lazier coder. Laziness is a virtue for a coder :) At least, when it goes to avoid unnecessary work - in this example, boilerplate code. Which is fine - set the PHP error level to not show them. This is not good enough - not showed errors are still generated and are quite expensive. But don't ask the engine to be rewritten to encourage bad coding practices which failing to properly initialize variables is a prime example of. It's The case we're dealing with is specifically about providing resolution for the case when the value is not initialized and the default value is provided. It is about making good code easier to write ($foo[$bar] ?? $baz instead of isset($foo[$bar])?$foo[$bar]:$bar). +1 This is precisely the use case I originally (erroneously) thought the ternary shortcut was for. It's not uncommon to use nested arrays or objects for configuration -- and configuration is one place where you may or may not have values. Having a shortcut to retrieve the value if present or provide a default is not just laziness, but also a way to improve your coding -- by removing yet another place for a typo. (Type the array/object access ONCE instead of TWICE.) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead| matt...@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/ PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few
threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common
theme - I wanna be a lazier coder.
My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I
would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know
that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even
do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in
other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain.
However, you may find 415,000 reasons why this feature could be useful
for developers in [1].
I also really like the whatevername($foo['not exists'], $config['not
exists'], $foo, $bar, 'default') function. I personally only usually
need 1 default value but I feel like many people may find uses for
this as well.
In addition I would like to mention that the checking being isset
for such a feature would be a very reasonable option, seeing as empty
[2], array_key_exists [3] (7000 uses found only) etc type use cases
are probably going to be a big minority. Most of the time checks done
with empty() seem to be done on known or already isset() checked, I.E.
isset($foo['bar']) !empty($foo['bar']) anyways.
Just some food for thought,
-Chris
[1]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*isset\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Search
[2]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=file%3A.*php+.*empty\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Search
[3]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*array_key_exists\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Search
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
It seems that there are no consensus about this feature so...
*if in doubt, leave it out.*
Martin Scotta
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Chris Stockton
chrisstockto...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-04-11, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
I might come off rather crumudgeonly here, but these last few
threads I've seen going across to silence notices have a common
theme - I wanna be a lazier coder.
My suggestion to use ?? I will say has little to do with laziness. I
would be happy with any solution that solves my problem, I just know
that implementing a patch for ?? would be simple enough (I could even
do so if requested). Everyone has different use patterns as shown in
other examples, this is natural and just comes with the domain.
However, you may find 415,000 reasons why this feature could be useful
for developers in [1].
I also really like the whatevername($foo['not exists'], $config['not
exists'], $foo, $bar, 'default') function. I personally only usually
need 1 default value but I feel like many people may find uses for
this as well.
In addition I would like to mention that the checking being isset
for such a feature would be a very reasonable option, seeing as empty
[2], array_key_exists [3] (7000 uses found only) etc type use cases
are probably going to be a big minority. Most of the time checks done
with empty() seem to be done on known or already isset() checked, I.E.
isset($foo['bar']) !empty($foo['bar']) anyways.
Just some food for thought,
-Chris
[1]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*isset\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Searchhttp://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*isset%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3Fsbtn=Search
[2]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=file%3A.*php+.*empty\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Searchhttp://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=file%3A.*php+.*empty%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3Fsbtn=Search
[3]
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*array_key_exists\%28.%2B%3F\%29[\s]{0%2C1}\%3Fsbtn=Searchhttp://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=.*array_key_exists%5C%28.%2B%3F%5C%29[%5Cs]%7B0%2C1%7D%5C%3Fsbtn=Search
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
The problem with implementing ifsetor, filled, or ?? in userland
is that the not set or undefined warning is fired before the
variable is passed to the underlying function/method.
Is it possible to add a modifier that turns off warnings for undefined
variables whenever that specific method is called? Something like:
class Utility {
public silent function filled() {
$args = func_get_args();
foreach ($args as $arg) {
if (!empty($arg)) { return $arg; }
}
return false;
}
}
$x = Utility::filled($my_undef, $x['undef'], $nosuch, 'default');
The modifier silent will turn all undefined or not isset() variables
into NULL values when being passed to the method and no warnings will be
issued.
Then, we can build our own damn functions as we see fit without the fuss.
-- Dante
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
@.
On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:22 PM, D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
The problem with implementing ifsetor, filled, or ?? in userland is
that the not set or undefined warning is fired before the variable is
passed to the underlying function/method.
Is it possible to add a modifier that turns off warnings for undefined
variables whenever that specific method is called? Something like:
class Utility {
public silent function filled() {
$args = func_get_args();
foreach ($args as $arg) {
if (!empty($arg)) { return $arg; }
}
return false;
}
}
$x = Utility::filled($my_undef, $x['undef'], $nosuch, 'default');
The modifier silent will turn all undefined or not isset() variables into
NULL values when being passed to the method and no warnings will be issued.
Then, we can build our own damn functions as we see fit without the fuss.
-- Dante
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] proposed access modifier silent ... was: Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator
Hi! @. Note however it does not exactly turn off the warning, only changes it to not reported. It's still generated and can be picked up by handlers, for example. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
