Re: Resurrecting the Function Renaming Thread

Richard Lynch wrote: > > 2.) Make function names consistent so that programmers don't have to > > remember that isset is the exception to the is_* type functions. > > Like, I don't even consider isset() in the same category as is_string(), > is_array() etc. > > isset() is like empty() > > is_xxx asks what type of variable this is. > isset asks if the variable even exists. > Those are totally different kinds of questions. > > If I saw is_set(), I'd start looking for a new Type in the language called > 'Set' which would be kind of like an array, only different somehow... Dunno > exactly what I'd expect it to do differently from an array, but that's what > I'd expect. > > So, are we going to also change empty() to is_empty()? That seems kinda > goofy... How about this instead: If you are used to using is_* and you use isset it is easy to accidentally use is_set instead. Is it strreplace or str_replace, and so on. The lack of consistency is a PITA. --zak