Re: not "autovivification", but ...?

From	"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: not "autovivification", but ...?
Date	2016-06-04 16:24 +0200
Organization	solani.org
Message-ID	<niuo9s$hgn$1@solani.org> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <d7cf47ca-3871-46e0-8434-b17ec1fe1440@googlegroups.com> <ninr5k$gee$1@news.albasani.net> <6429329.X1ROTxqqWj@PointedEars.de> <niovaj$a17$1@solani.org> <4526211.5joGbGu2Zc@PointedEars.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 03.06.2016 at 22:20, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> 
>> As well as all other notices, warnings, etc.  Not a problem in this
>> case, but consider:
>>
>>   function keyName() {
>>       trigger_error('deprecated', E_USER_DEPRECATED);
>>       return 'x';
>>   }
>>   @$foo[keyName()];
> 
> Straw man (Stefan in cljs, *and* you, being more courteous than him, here 
> where it belongs). 
> 
> I did not say it were the best solution.  I did not say it were a general 
> solution.  I said it is *a* solution *without extra configuration*.

And I merely stated that this solution might have drawbacks in more
complex cases.  I understand that you already have been aware of these
dangers, but not necessarily other readers.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: not "autovivification", but ...? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-02 02:16 +0200
  Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-06-02 11:47 +0200
    Re: not "autovivification", but ...? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-03 22:20 +0200
      Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-06-04 16:24 +0200

csiph-web