Update to the MODDB policy for phpBB3.

[primehalo]

I think we're getting off-topic here. But no, that is not the same thing. That returns a default value if the variable is not set. There are circumstances where you will want to perform a specific action when the variable is not set, not just return a value or set it to a value.

There isn't a reason to prefer != over <>, but if you need to compare types as well as values then you'll need to use !== because as far as I know !<> doesn't exist.

[darksminky]

I suppose we are off topic. ..

you will want to perform a specific action when the variable is not set

and that's what I was suggesting with using an if statement in that fashion, because if the variable isn't set, it outputs the default that the if statement tests for, thus testing for whether it's a set indirectly, but accurately.

[primehalo]

if the variable isn't set, it outputs the default that the if statement tests for, thus testing for whether it's a set indirectly, but accurately.

Testing for default matches and testing for isset are not one in the same, because the value of the variable could be the same your the default value. You're saying this condition is the same as checking for !isset($_GET['foo']):

Code: Select all

if (request_var('foo', 'bar') == 'bar')
{
}

But this will return true if $_GET['foo'] isn't set and if $_GET['foo'] is set and equal to 'bar'. If you're trying to perform an action only if it isn't set then you have to use isset().

[darksminky]

Ah, I see what your saying, though one could do that if the default was illegal, which would rarely be the case
(ditch an if(!empty()) for a if(request_var('foo','') == '') for instance.)
Though I see the point you were making

My bad!

[darksminky]

maybve we should draft a rule illegalizing editing a config value outside of the ACP