Bringing up this old issue a bit.
Nothing was ever said of unset? Should unset be benign?
Since unset() is intended to take an action (rather than check on state)
shouldn't an invalid unset (one with a guarded property that doesn't
have a setter) emit a warning?
On 10/30/2012 10:37 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
Would you say the same of unset? Always benign?
On 10/29/2012 2:14 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
So... to be explicit here, you think in this situation:
class a {
public $b {
set($x) { $this->b = $x; }
}
}
$o = new a();
if(!isset($o->b)) {
/* delete files */
}
echo (int)isset($o->b); /* This should return false and not emit any
sort of warning/notice? */
isset should return false, since $b is not set value. It should not
produce any warning. Of course (int) would produce 0 then ;)
I mean specifically, there is no getter defined, therefore the result
if isset is indeterminate and while I can see it not causing execution
No, the result is determinate - it's false. That's the point of isset()
in PHP and that's how it is used in existing code.
to stop I don't see it being a good idea to not warn the developer that
what they've attempted is not correct. Without a getter, isset() is
not a legal call (since the value cannot be retrieved).
isset() should always be legal. This is the way to check if $o->b is
legal.
--
-Clint
