If it were possible at all to make a function accept unset variables without generating a notice, I think ifsetor() shouldn't even be implemented. People could then have the freedom to create such functions themselves. But unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be possible, unless you'd suppress every function call with a @, which I don't think is the way to go in this case.
So if it would be possible somehow to create your own isset()-like functions in PHP-code, I'd say implement something that would make that possible, and ingore the whole ifsetor() discussion from that moment on. People would be free to write whatever function they'd prefer. Ron ""Sara Golemon"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > What about ifsetor for 5.1 ? > > > > Would anybody be interested in a parameter for ifsetor() that would treat > > isset() as !empty() or an alternative function that achieves this? I know > > I'd love to see that. I use empty() a lot more than isset(). > > > In the interrest of KISS, I'd leave the emptiness concept out of the > picture. Unlike isset-ness, an emptiness coalesce *can* be done in > userspace: > > function firstNotEmpty() { > $vars = func_get_args(); > foreach($vars as $var) > if (!empty($var)) return $var; > return NULL; > } > > There's enough....contention over the undeniably useful and > not-implementable-in-userspace parts of this thread that it's not worth > muddling it up with things that are a simple matter to do in userspace. It > doesn't matter that notempty() and ifsetor() could easily be implemented by > the same opcode (just like isset/empty are). > > -Sara -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
