Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions

From: Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:58:26 +0000
Subject: Re: RE: RFC: expectations/assertions
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hi Nikita,

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Nikita Popov <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is a difference between f() and 'f'. The former is a function call,
> the latter a callback. The eval-behavior non-withstanding assert is
> essentially if (!$arg1) { error($arg2); }. So if (!f()) { ... } makes a lot
> of sense, but if (!function() {}) {} makes zero sense. Again, function() {}
> only creates a callback, but does *not* run it. To run it, you'd need
> something like (function(){})().


Thank you for the explanation.
Current assert() is consistent as its spec, since it does not support
callable which is callback function.

I think assert() may accept closure. As I wrote in another mail,

assert(function() {
   // some
   // useful
   // code
});

looks nicer and more modern.
Users are use to this as this kind of form is extensively used in
JavaScript.
I wish to have this form for new assert().

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
[email protected]


Thread (44 messages)

« previous php.internals (#72248) next »