Hi,
""Sebastian B.-Hagensen"" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
caojcv8yx7vohtd1ja2obdrntdzb0q1soyqdyhsar3vt2vgs...@mail.gmail.com...
2015-02-13 14:45 GMT+01:00 Thomas Punt <tp...@hotmail.co.uk>:
Hi Francois,
From: franc...@tekwire.net>
May I suggest to extend your proposal to is_null() with the same logic ?
If we were to do the same with is_null(), then would it not be best to do
it with all the is_*() functions? I would be more than happy to cater for
those functions as well, though their usages seem a lot less common. What
does everyone else think?
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).
I agree, this behaviour should be extended to all the is_* functions if
possible.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
