On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 02:21 PM 4/15/2004 -0400, Sean Coates wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
It could be implemented but I don't see the big advantage over $bar ? 0 :
$base
It's one character...
oes to GCC and its C extension).
$bar ? : $baz;
If $bar evaluates to
Hello Internals team,
Thank you for taking a moment to evaluate a serious request by a serious
php developer that is responsible for a development company of 15 employees.
In order to keep our code as clean and error free as possible, we opt to
develop in the E_ALL error mode, and
I am not sure what would be the best name for such an engine construct or a
function, but the idea itself is good (IMHO). It would certainly make it
easier to write safer notice free code.
Ilia
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
That is basically the same idea once proposed as extending
the ternary operator (credit goes to GCC and its C extension).
$bar ? : $baz;
If $bar evaluates to true, the expression evaluates to $bar
or to 0, respectively.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Is there a good reason to NOT implement this?
If not, I'm +1 on that (if I carry ANY weight at all (-: )
BC isn't an issue, and it would be a very useful feature, IMHO..
S
Sascha Schumann wrote:
That is basically the same idea once proposed as extending
the ternary operator (credit goes
It could be implemented but I don't see the big advantage over $bar ? 0 : $base
It's one character...
At 02:09 PM 4/15/2004 -0400, Sean Coates wrote:
Is there a good reason to NOT implement this?
If not, I'm +1 on that (if I carry ANY weight at all (-: )
BC isn't an issue, and it would be a very
The best functionality would be for it to return the value, not re-assign
it. Many of the things being talked about would modify the sent parameter,
rather than return selected value.
For instance (using the isset_or_default()) call:
$nCustID = (int) isset_or_default($_POST['CUST_ID'], 0);
Sascha Schumann wrote:
That is basically the same idea once proposed as extending
the ternary operator (credit goes to GCC and its C extension).
$bar ? : $baz;
yes, that looks like the way it should look like,
and the danger of newbees abusing it would be way lower
than with a function
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Jason Garber wrote:
$_POST['CUST_ID'] = (int) isset_or_default($_POST['CUST_ID'], 0);
I agree that it would be helpful not to evaluate the second parameter
unless needed, which is why I originally proposed a language construct.
You'll need something more clever, because
Hi Derick,
I see. I was basing the spec on the functionality of isset() which does
not (obviously) throw an E_NOTICE when you pass an undefined variable to
it. However, do you see any reason that this would not reliably work?
function setor($param, $default)
{
return (isset($param) ?
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Jason Garber wrote:
I see. I was basing the spec on the functionality of isset() which does
not (obviously) throw an E_NOTICE when you pass an undefined variable to
it. However, do you see any reason that this would not reliably work?
I wrote this (I underlined the
I wrote this (I underlined the relevant parts for you):
You'll need something more clever, because
an undefined key 'CUST_ID' in $_POST['CUST_ID'] will strill throw a
Consider this:
---
?php
error_reporting(E_ALL);
function setor($param, $default)
{
You can avoid the E_NOTICE using a reference, but it can have undesired
side effects. For example, if you pass $x[5] by reference (whether to
an internal function or a user defined function), $x[5] will be
created and set to NULL. To avoid this side-effect, don't use the
reference and instead
+1 for the GCC style syntax.
--Wez.
- Original Message -
From: Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sascha Schumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ilia Alshanetsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Construct Request
Sascha
Hello Derick,
Thursday, April 15, 2004, 10:07:01 PM, you wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Jason Garber wrote:
I see. I was basing the spec on the functionality of isset() which does
not (obviously) throw an E_NOTICE when you pass an undefined variable to
it. However, do you see any reason that
Jason Garber wrote:
function setor($param, $default)
{
return (isset($param) ? $param : $default);
}
I tested it on 4.3.4 and 5.0 RC1, and it worked. Is passing an
undefined variable as a reference parameter a legal thing to do in PHP?
That bring up an interesting point:
Sean Coates wrote:
Jason Garber wrote:
function setor($param, $default)
{
return (isset($param) ? $param : $default);
}
I tested it on 4.3.4 and 5.0 RC1, and it worked. Is passing an
undefined variable as a reference parameter a legal thing to do in PHP?
That bring up an interesting
At 02:21 PM 4/15/2004 -0400, Sean Coates wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
It could be implemented but I don't see the big advantage over $bar ? 0 :
$base
It's one character...
oes to GCC and its C extension).
$bar ? : $baz;
If $bar evaluates to true, the expression evaluates to $bar
or to
Hello,
Let me make an attempt to clarify what I originally requested.
--
A function/construct named setor() modeled after isset(), which takes 2
parameters:
parameter 1, the variable in question
parameter 2, the default value
if(isset($parameter1))
return $parameter1;
else
return
19 matches
Mail list logo
