Should really theses functions discard the whole string for a single
incomplete sequence ?
I think since it is not possible to recover true content of the string,
it is ok to return failure value. Cutting it in random places or
ignoring problems doesn't seem a good idea - it might lead
Hello,
I would like karma to commit bugfixes in php-src. (i'd send patches)
Actually i have access to phpdoc, phpdoc-langs.
My cvs id: felipe
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hi,
i just found the new ifsetor like construction in php6. It left me the
question why php has to throw an E_NOTICE when the variable is not set. This
is basicly because that actually is the meaning of this construction,
checking if the variable is set and if it isnt give back a standard
I'm sorry I misunderstood. If specifying like $var ?: 5 then it should
throw an E_NOTICE, as this is a conditional that checks the value of a
variable ($var).
Sebastian, for assigning of a default value is a variable is not set, I
would recommend using something like this (this is what I use):
I don't think throwing a E_NOTICE is appropriate. The isset() construct
doesn't throw an E_NOTICE, this shouldn't either.
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 17:30 +0100, Sebastian wrote:
hi,
i just found the new ifsetor like construction in php6. It left me the
question why php has to throw an E_NOTICE
On Saturday 26 January 2008 18:22:09 Sam Barrow wrote:
I'm sorry I misunderstood. If specifying like $var ?: 5 then it should
throw an E_NOTICE, as this is a conditional that checks the value of a
variable ($var).
Sebastian, for assigning of a default value is a variable is not set, I
would
Hi,
usage of references here have some bad consequences, it will pollute
the input array with null entries:
function foo($a) { }
var_dump(array_key_exists('inexistent', $_GET)); // bool(false)
foo($_GET['inexistent']);
var_dump(array_key_exists('inexistent', $_GET)); // bool(true)
will actually
On Jan 26, 2008 5:30 PM, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
i just found the new ifsetor like construction in php6.
(FYI: It has already been merged to 5.3)
-Hannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 12:17 -0500 schrieb Sam Barrow:
I don't think throwing a E_NOTICE is appropriate. The isset() construct
doesn't throw an E_NOTICE, this shouldn't either.
As far as I understand it is just an extension to the already present
tertiary operator and therefore the
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:13 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 12:17 -0500 schrieb Sam Barrow:
I don't think throwing a E_NOTICE is appropriate. The isset() construct
doesn't throw an E_NOTICE, this shouldn't either.
As far as I understand it is just an
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 16:23 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
And I thought the whole point was for it to not generate a notice. Isn't
that why the name ifsetor was chosen? Since it's supposed to work like
isset() by not generating notices?
This thing is not called ifsetor. From the commit
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 16:23 -0500 schrieb Robert Cummings:
[...]
This doesn't work how you think... if $_GET['foo'] is set then the
return value is true and not the value of $_GET['foo'].
Hm, check what happens:
$b = array(false, false);
var_dump($b[0] ?: sdf);
This will return
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 22:43 +0100 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
[...]
?: operator
[DOC] expr1 ?: expr1 is a shortcut for: expr1
? expr1 : expr2 as exists in gcc and discussed some time back. Note
that this is not an implementation ifsetor($var, default). While
ifsetor would not
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:13 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 26.01.2008, 12:17 -0500 schrieb Sam Barrow:
I don't think throwing a E_NOTICE is appropriate. The isset() construct
doesn't throw an E_NOTICE, this shouldn't either.
As far as I understand it is just an
Instead of using simple sanitizing function users are forced to check for
errors. How good is that? It makes code complex or unreliable.
Explain me again how checking for errors makes code unreliable?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
any news on this topic?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Instead of using simple sanitizing function users are forced to check
for errors. How good is that? It makes code complex or unreliable.
Explain me again how checking for errors makes code unreliable?
OR unreliable. If you check for errors, sanitizing code is complex. If you
don't check and
17 matches
Mail list logo
