Suggestion: make isset, unset and empty parenthesis owners #3118
Projects
Comments
jrfnl
added a commit
to PHPCSStandards/PHPCSUtils
that referenced
this issue
Sep 20, 2020
PHPCS natively does not consider `isset()`, `unset()`, `empty()`, `exit()`, `die()` and `eval()` as parentheses owners.
As of now, the methods in the PHPCSUtils `Parentheses` class will.
If effect, this means you can now check whether an arbitrary token is within an `isset()`, `unset()` or `empty()` call by calling:
```php
if (Parentheses::hasOwner($phpcsFile, $stackPtr, [\T_ISSET, \T_UNSET, \T_EMPTY]) !== false) {
// Do something.
}
```
Related issue upstream: squizlabs/PHP_CodeSniffer#3118
|
Makes sense to me. For the constructs that don't require parenthesis, just need to make sure they don't go hunting for unowned ones and claiming them, although this may already be protected against. |
Eh.. not really... that's part of the problem with closure With that in mind, should this be addressed in PHPCS 3.x or 4.x ? (PR #3104 is for 4.x and includes part of the protection which would need to be added for the above as well.) |
|
Closing as replaced by PHPCSStandards/PHP_CodeSniffer#23 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I was just wondering why
isset(),unset()andempty()- all language constructs which require parentheses - are not considered parentheses owners.Would it make sense to change that ? Should be a relatively easy change to make as far as I can see.
Happy to make the changes if there is interest.
[Edit]: Might be useful to include
exit(),die()andeval()as well, though these three don't require parentheses, but are "owners" when the parentheses are present.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: