Le jeudi 13 février 2020, 09:16:49 CET Paul M. Jones a écrit :
> Yeah, naming is one of the hard problems. I considered $query as an
> alternative property name for $get, but in the end, the `$_GET => $get`
> symmetry was too great to ignore. If others here feel that $query is a better
> name for `$_GET` than $get, I will submit to consensus on that point.
query is definitely better than get.
Regarding post, I’m fine with body, parsedBody and input.
I get the idea of input to mimic php://input, but if I understand things
correctly, php://input is raw body, while $request->post is parsed body, so
naming them alike might actually cause confusion?
> > Given 'echo $content; => $response->setContent($content);', shouldn't
> > this rather be something like `addContent()`?
>
> That looks like poor describing on my part in the RFC. It is more true to say
> that these are equivalent:
>
> echo $content;
>
> // =>
>
> $response->setContent($content);
> $responseSender->send($response);
>
> I will try to make that more apparent in the RFC.
I still do not understand this.
echo adds content to the response, it does not replace it.
So the equivalent function should be $response->addContent.
I would expect $response->setContent to replace the content.
Can you explicit behavior for this:
$response->setContent("a\n");
$response->setContent("b\n");
$responseSender->send($response);
Compared to
echo "a\n";
echo "b\n";
--
Côme Chilliet
FusionDirectory - https://www.fusiondirectory.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
