I don't, but I could see that viewpoint where Phil is coming from when he talks about
the fact
that functions can end up with 2 different goals, and then when we want to enhance them
we end up with multiple behaviors in a single function and way too many option flags.
Thinking about it though, I can't think of anything in the multi-arg version that
would really
need to be enhanced. So, like I said, Im not objecting. : )
-Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Phil Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chris Newbill"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PHP DEV"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] feature request
> I don't see the negative aspect of having it accept multiple variables. Is
> there one? If there isn't, then there's no need to invent a problem...
>
> Zeev
>
> At 22:08 19/3/2001, Jason Greene wrote:
> >Perhaps isset should be branched to form a separate function to handle
> >multi args,
> >we could offer things in the new function such as an optional argument
> >that passes back an array of results.
> >
> >-Jason
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Phil Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Chris Newbill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Zeev Suraski"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: "PHP DEV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:58 PM
> >Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] feature request
> >
> >
> > > My earlier post to the list doesn't seem to have arrived yet, so here it is
> > > again. You'll note from the posting that I'm not keen on the patch staying
> > > in. There are considerable efforts being made by several of us on the QA
> > > team trying to make the language more orthogonal, and this kind of ad hoc
> > > addition really doesn't help.
> > >
> > > ************
> > > >That is the only thing that I see of any real use as well. I was just
> > > >humoring Andi and his idea that we would soon be requesting that
> > feature of
> > > >knowing which one failed the test.
> > >
> > > I was really voting no for the original feature - just returning true or
> > > false - unless it can be shown (and implemented) that iswhatever(multiple
> > > args) will work sensibly across the board, and that implementing
> > > iswhatever(multiple args) does not waste the function namespace for a new
> > > feature - e.g. loads of php functions take optional extra arguments to
> > > modify their behaviour, but once iswhatever gained the multi argument
> > > functionality described, it would be impossible to extend the functionality
> > > in this way.
> > >
> > > Cheers, and apologies for such a long sentence
> > > ************
> > > --
> > > Phil Driscoll
> > > Dial Solutions
> > > +44 (0)113 294 5112
> > > http://www.dialsolutions.com
> > > http://www.dtonline.org
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> > > 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. http://www.zend.com/
>
>
> --
> PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
