And how about the suggestion to use true;, false;, and null;, and
define
those entities to be what it should be? That is usually the easiest
typing,
I think. And when you decide that it maybe should be constant
class='language'TRUE/contant, or the same with literal, it saves you a
lot op
I'm against it too. Most of docs already use literal and
What is now used, is IMO not really relevant.
I think Goba's right with TRUE not being a constant anymore.
Well, it is listed as a constant is the source, but I
can only say, I don't think of it as a constant.
You're right,
How about the convenstion that true/false should always be written as:
constantTRUE/constant
and idem for false?
It is also possible to make that a snippet, but I think that'd be
overkill... What do you think of it?
By the way: typical example of where a good script can be used :) In
TRUE *is not* a constant. There is a boolean type in PHP 4.
TRUE *was* a constant in PHP 3...
It is still defined as constant, just like NULL.
(zend_constants.c:117 : true/false constants)
THough you can argue
that it's better to see it as being a special keyword.
It is a constant in the
]; PHP-DOC lista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Convention: true/false
TRUE *is not* a constant. There is a boolean type in PHP 4.
TRUE *was* a constant in PHP 3...
It is still defined as constant, just like NULL.
(zend_constants.c:117 : true
le 26/06/01 16:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
So, I'm still in favor of constant. Thats 1 contra, 1 pro.
I'm against, so that makes 2 contra, 1 pro
I'm against it too. Most of docs already use literal and
I think Goba's right with TRUE not being a constant anymore.
I
How about the convenstion that true/false should always be written as:
constantTRUE/constant
and idem for false?
It is also possible to make that a snippet, but I think that'd be
overkill... What do you think of it?
By the way: typical example of where a good script can be used :) In fact
just
