Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- rfc:empty_isset_exprs [2012/04/18 23:06] – Move to voting nikic
+++ rfc:empty_isset_exprs [2012/04/30 12:49] – Change vote nikic
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 but it is not possible to write ''empty(foo())''.
-Trying to do so results in this not pariculary helpful error message: "Can't use function return value in write context".
+Trying to do so results in this not particularly helpful error message: "Can't use function return value in write context".
 For other expressions (not variables and not function calls) a parse error is thrown.
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 As for function calls (and other expressions) it is already known that the value exists, using ''empty()''/''isset()'' is
-not necessary and ''!func()''/''func() !== null'' can be used instead instead.
+not necessary and ''!func()''/''func() !== null'' can be used instead.
 ==== Why should we change the behavior? ====
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 <doodle
-title="Should empty() and isset() accept arbitrary arguments?" auth="nikic" voteType="single" closed="False">
+title="Which of the language constructs should accept arbitrary arguments?" auth="nikic" voteType="single" closed="False">
+   * Both empty() and isset()
+   * Only empty()
+   * None
+</doodle>
+The previous vote is obsolete and is left here only for reference:
+<doodle
+title="Should empty() and isset() accept arbitrary arguments?" auth="nikic" voteType="single" closed="True">
    * yes
    * no
 </doodle>