Re: [RFC] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() and isset()

2012/5/3 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>: > Anthony Ferrara wrote: >> >> I voted for the ability to use an expression for isset() as well, >> since I agree with Ferenc, it's a matter of consistency.  Sure, the >> use-case for isset() is definitely weaker than for empty(), but at the >> same token they are definitely related... > > > I just can't help feeling that it is the wrong use of both. If the function > is returning a value, then it's returning a value that needs to be used > somewhere so the work flow handles that. If the function returns nothing > instead that just seems wrong and needs to be handled better. I'm used to > getting back 'false' if the function failed and just check for that so why > would there be any logical reason for using isset or empty to check a > function return? Use case: // Function definition: function getFriends() { // SQL SELECT or Fetching from XML or Fetching from LDAP or ... return $resultsAsArray; } // Looping on results: foreach ( getFriends() as $friend ) { echo $friend["name"], "\n"; } // Case where the results are actually not iterated: $amIAssocial = empty( getFriends() ); 1. It it not wrong to return "nothing", like empty sets (empty arrays), it is a valid case. 2. Returning "false" in the case there is no "results" would be a bad idea: not only you would have to put a condition in the function definition, but you would also require all iterations (e.g. foreach) to be encapsulated in a condition statement to prevent looping on "false".