I think it's different especially as it's complementary to unset()
but I don't intend to get into an argument about it.
In any case, the tools for Andrew to resolve this programmatically on
the PHP level exist even if the syntax isn't 100% of what he'd like it to be.
Over and out.
Andi
At 05:24 PM 1/3/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Andi,
we didn't saw any necessaty for __isset either.
marcus
Wednesday, January 4, 2006, 1:41:44 AM, you wrote:
> Right but you can do it in user-land. If you're writing __call() you
> could add an additional method to see if it's mapped. I don't think
> it's quite as common as isset().
> At 04:05 PM 1/3/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>>Hello Andi,
>>
>> the point is probably that there is no way in determinig whether a
>>certain function is supposed to work prior to calling it.
>>
>>regards
>>marcus
>>
>>Wednesday, January 4, 2006, 12:45:23 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Why not just use Reflection API to check? It seems quite
trivial to do so.
>>
>> > At 12:57 PM 1/3/2006, Andrew Yochum wrote:
>> >>Currently there is no way to detect if the __call overloads a particular
>> >>method. Property overloading has __isset now in 5.1 - maybe for method
>> >>overloading the equivalent should be something like __iscallable. Maybe
>> >>method_exists should remain as is, as the method won't ever really exist
>> >>but is_callable would/could use it, or perhaps some new function.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
