So basically here's my goal (it's the same as if ( v. if( ). I don't care about reaching consensus on either side, because such an attempt is futile. The only thing I want to at least get some support on is that a given patchset should not be blocked from merging just because it uses empty() in a place where it's obviously OK to use it (for example, when you're checking if a function argument is empty one line below the beginning of the function).
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongm...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroended...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > Currently our coding conventions have major prohibitions on the use of > > isset() ... > > > > Oh, would not think so if you did a grep on core. > > > > There are valid uses for isset, and as far as I am aware, those are not > prohibited and are actively being used. That does not mean that we do or > should allow isset in every case where it can be used. > > > Bryan > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
