Re: Re: ext/filter, Final API proposal

Hello, On 9/20/06, Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com> wrote:

Pierre wrote: The flag allows arrays and always returns an array. It is obvious as if you allow array or scalar, you have to use is_array, that's a step we easily drop internally by always returning an array. I do not see the point to have ALLOW_ARRAY and FORCE_ARRAY. It is confusing. I agree with you there. And I also like the function names you guys came up with.

Thanks, the patch is even ready, but...

But my real reason to write this email is this: Is there any chance INPUT_REQUEST would make it into 5.2 if I come up with a patch? What would be the time frame for it? Is your current patch online so I could base it on that? The reason I'm asking is that I think it the interface without it is unnecessarily crippled and providing it later makes version checking necessary in code using this function.

If Derick can make a compromise and accept to this widely approved proposal, yes, I can make INPUT_REQUEST for 5.2. If not, I'm not even sure that 5.2 will have filter (or any upcoming version). I'm pessimist, I'm again blocked by a "no" without alternatives. Please note that Dmitry was kind enough to merge a bug fix about cgi and -d. It will allow me to add a bunch of INPUT_GET/POST/REQUEST tests with different default filters. --Pierre