Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > On 04/02/14 21:30, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > >> eval() works. >> >> php > assert(eval('FALSE;')); >> >> Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1 >> php > assert(eval('return FALSE;')); >> >> Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1 >> php > >> >> However, it does not solve inconsistency. PHP code has to be string. >> Writing PHP code as string is not fun thing to do ;) >> > > That's not what I meant. At present, you do: > > assert($string); > > And that string is evaluated. A closure would be faster. Though this is > for debugging code, so I'm not sure it matters (though I, unlike some > people, might like to use assertions in production code to make sure things > fail early, fail often). I think I understood your comment. php > assert('function() {return FALSE;}'); php > assert('function() {return TRUE;}'); It does not work, but php > assert(eval('function() {return FALSE;};')); Warning: assert(): Assertion failed in php shell code on line 1 so closure in eval() works. I don't see reason not to allow closure directly. It only seems inconsistent to me. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net