Jason Greene writes:
> > Generally using functions for two different purposes is a bad idea, but 
> > enhancing functions with additional arguments that extend its functionality 
> > is not too bad.  In this case, adding n arguments is perhaps the extension 
> > that makes the most sense for isset(), so we should go with it.  Keeping it 
> > with one argument 'for future use' doesn't make much sense in my 
> > opinion.  Not any more sense than saying the same thing about some new 
> > argument someone might want to add to it in the future - why not keep it 
> > clean and wait for a 'better' use?
> > 
> > Zeev
> I agree, this is something thats had more thought put into it than it really needed.
> This functionality very much fits issets nature - something goes in and 0/1 comes
> out. There really is no reason to not implement the request.
> -Jason

Well, Phil is right in that if isset() is changed then
iseverythingelse() also needs to be examined and if necessary and
possible changed to suit. Otherwise we'll be fielding questions about
'well it works this way for *this* function, why not this one?' for
years. The same question. Over and over and over. Because if the
language itself isn't consistent then no number of FAQs and manual
notes will prevent people from stubbing their toes.

I think that too much thought has most definitely *not* been put into
this issue--the effect on the whole language needs to be considered,
not just isset(). Just IMHO, of course.

|Torben Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                    Adcore Finland|
|http://www.coastnet.com/~torben            http://www.adcore.com|
|Ph: 1.604.709.0506                             [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]

Reply via email to