Hi, > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:09:16 +0100 > From: sbj.ml.r...@gmail.com > > While I don't know how common such a usage is I'm certain that there > is a use case for it. However, just modifying a subset of the is_* > functions sounds like a bad idea. If such a change is applied it > should be done to all type related is_* functions and be similar to > issets behavior (return false if at least one argument is not of the > given type). > > Thanks,
Agreed on that. It would be better for consistency's sake. -Tom
