You're right, the only right way would be to introduce a new function like the isval() I suggested in my reply to Jevon.
Ron "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > There is a big difference between isset() and empty() and it was discussed > a lot in the past. > You'll see both sides to the coin after reading the archives. It's really a > problem make a call on this one. > > Andi > > At 01:13 PM 10/20/2004 +0200, Ron Korving wrote: > >Okay, I don't wanna make remarks that may have already been made earlier, > >but I think it should be "all should be empty", because it works exactly the > >same for isset(), and apparently, a decision was made to give isset() that > >feature. > > > >Ron > > > > > >"Derick Rethans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Ron Korving wrote: > > > > > > > I think it would be a good idea to apply the idea of infinite parameters > > > > that's been used with isset(), so one can test multiple variables: > > > > > > > > if (empty($var1, $var2, $var3)) echo "data missing"; > > > > > > We discussed this before and we didn't want to agree if it should behave > > > like "each one should be empty" or "all should be empty". So we will not > > > add it. > > > > > > Derick > > > > > > -- > > > Derick Rethans > > > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org > > > >-- > >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
