Phil is right.  The only thing that may be both useful and practical would 
be isset() on multiple variables, returning either true or false.


At 11:31 19/3/2001, Phil Driscoll wrote:
> >$a = 1;
> >$b = 2;
> >$d = 4;
> >
> >$play_nice = isSet($a, $b, $c, $d);
> >
> >if (!$play_nice) {
> >    print "The variable missing is in position ";
> >    print ($play_nice*-1);
> >}
> >
> >And it would print 3, in which case we would know $c is not set.  I'm not
> >that sure about this approach, seems like a hack,
>It is a hack - what if $a AND $c were unset. You really need to return an
>arbitrary length bitfield, with one bit for each arg. Then the sensible name
>for the function would be isunset!
>That said, I think the whole idea is bad. I appreciate the reduced number of
>keypresses involved, but I don't think that this is a feature you can apply
>orthogonally to the rest of the language without serious repercussions, and
>therefore it would not posses the desirable attribute that you would be able
>to guess that isset worked this way.
>Hence my vote:
>  (X) don't make sweeping changes to language functionality without fully
>considering the repercussions.
>Phil Driscoll
>Dial Solutions
>+44 (0)113 294 5112
>PHP Development Mailing List <>
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd.

PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to