I agree Phil, that is the mature way to examine this.
Except, I would be surprised if we _cannot_ apply the same reasoning to the
other is_* functions, it's the exact same concept. I'm just not familiar
enough with the internal workings to conclude whether is_*($x, $y, $z) would
be efficient or even used for that matter.
Although I might consider using it like if (isSet($a, $b) && is_int($a,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Driscoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, 19 March, 2001 2-11 pM
> To: Chris Newbill; Zeev Suraski; Andi Gutmans; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: PHP DEV
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] feature request
> Andi said:
> >isset() is not an internal function but a language construct. I
> disagree on
> >the "using additional arguments for other stuff part". It's often very
> >weird that functions behave differently according to the way they are
> I've just done a quick count of the php functions which take an optional
> extra argument to change their behaviour, and I stopped when I
> reached 100.
> Fair enough, isset is a language construct, but most of the other
> isblahs/ext_isblahs are functions, however your average php
> programmer won't
> even know what this means, let alone be able to discriminate.
> My point is that if you are going to do it to isset, AND the
> language is to
> become more orthogonal then it MUST also be done to isanythingelse. I can
> see that there are no nasty repercussions with using the technique for
> isset, however there are many many isanythingelses and I'd be surprised if
> we can apply the
> reasoning across the board.
> I don't want to stifle innovation here, I just want us to think beyond the
> immediate problem when the language gets extended.
> Phil Driscoll
> Dial Solutions
> +44 (0)113 294 5112
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]