So we should probably go for a strict bool(false).
At 03:19 PM 5/30/2004 +0200, Timm Friebe wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 14:18, Andi Gutmans wrote:
[...]
> I saw it was already commited before I had a chance to respond. In any
> case, I think that the patch is quite harmless but I don't like the != NULL
> && !true logic. It's inconsistent with what is considered true/false in PHP
> today. I suggest either:
> a) return true if you want the default handler to be called. I don't have a
> problem with this but people here say it's opposite from other frameworks.
> Are there really so many precedents?
> b) return false (== IS_BOOL && value == 0). This gives a strict but
> reasonable interface and is still BC. I don't see a reason why people
> should be returning other false values besides "false".
In ext/sybase_ct's message handler, I check on bool(false) being returned from the user-defined callback and, in case it is, proceed with the default handler (printing out an E_WARNING).
The reasoning behind this was that for me FALSE indicates "I cannot handle this".
- Timm
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
