rfc:empty_isset_exprs

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
rfc:empty_isset_exprs [2012/04/18 23:06] – Move to voting nikicrfc:empty_isset_exprs [2012/05/24 21:06] – Mark as implemented nikic
Line 2: Line 2:
   * Date: 2012-04-12   * Date: 2012-04-12
   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>   * Author: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
-  * Status: In voting phase+  * Status: Implemented
   * Original discussion: http://markmail.org/thread/gnci76ugtwda2t42 (Apr 10, 2012 3:53 pm)   * Original discussion: http://markmail.org/thread/gnci76ugtwda2t42 (Apr 10, 2012 3:53 pm)
   * RFC announcement: http://markmail.org/thread/ju2jyrenxkeddrnt (Apr 12, 2012 2:42 pm)   * RFC announcement: http://markmail.org/thread/ju2jyrenxkeddrnt (Apr 12, 2012 2:42 pm)
Line 15: Line 15:
 but it is not possible to write ''empty(foo())''. 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. 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 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? ==== ==== Why should we change the behavior? ====
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 The patch is available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/54 The patch is available as a PR on Github: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/54
 +
 +==== Change only empty()? ====
 +
 +After further discussion it seems like it might be better to only add expression support for ''empty()'', but not for ''isset()''. The
 +original RFC included ''isset()'', because changing only one of the language constructs seemed inconsistent (as they are so similar).
 +
 +On the other hand, using ''isset()'' on function calls and other expressions doesn't seem particularly useful. ''isset(someFunction())''
 +is semantically unclear (how can ''someFunction()'' not be set?) and could be interpreted as a check whether the function itself exists.
 +
 +Allowing ''isset()'' to accept expressions would probably only cause confusion.
  
 ==== Vote ==== ==== Vote ====
  
 <doodle  <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="True"> 
 +   * 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    * yes
    * no    * no
 </doodle> </doodle>
 +
 +==== Result ====
 +
 +The RFC was accepted with the option "Only empty()". The relevant commit it https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/ec061a93c53c8cde10237741e98e992c1a05d148.
rfc/empty_isset_exprs.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1

Page Tools