At 20:16 16/06/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Zeev,
Thursday, June 16, 2005, 7:12:49 PM, you wrote:
> Marcus,
> If you read what I said in my emails on this topic, it's clear that I know
> that this is the case. As I said, this approach has the side effect of
> creating an empty placeholder if the variable to be checked doesn't
> exist. I also said that I think it would usually make more sense to simply
> assign the variable with the wanted value, instead of just returning that
> value, so that you don't have to clutter your code with ifsetor()'s or
> whatever each coder ends up calling this (sometimes it may not be
> desirable, obviously, but I assume it would be more often than not).
> At the end of the day, this is really a nuance. Fact is that it's possible
> to implement ifsetor() functionality today in userland. We cannot go
> around implementing a new construct for every possible thing that someone
> might need. This should be implemented in userland, even if it has a small
> side effect. It gives you the full power of doing whatever you want,
> instead of being limited to what a low level construct does.
Fact is it's not.
Try it and show it here.
Someone else already did.
We wouldn't discuss it if it was possible.
Sure we would. I know a great part of the reason you wanted ifsetor() is
performance. With the proposed userland approach, performance would
obviously be worse than the ? : approach since it uses a more expensive
function call. As I said in the past, that too isn't good enough a reason
to introduce a new construct - since we'd find ourselves cluttered with
constructs for everything. It's no scoop that C is faster than PHP.
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
