Re: wrong implementation of isset()?

>> Great analysis. What about answering the question? Stanislav Malyshev >> said some months ago this is 'strange', see the discussion around bug >> 6076. Tell us at least, why this actually isn't strange. > > By default, any unset variable has value NULL - and isset(NULL) returns > false to indicate that. Similarly, assigning NULL to a variable unsets > it. > > -Andrei > * The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. * Well, sure, isset(NULL) should return false, it's not a variable set in the scope. A constant(?) yes, but not a variable. But if you set a variable at some point in a script, would it not stand to reason that that name is in the global/local namespace, and therefore IS set? It's somewhat conflicting when you reason: <?php $a = 1; $b = 2; $c = NULL; print_r($GLOBALS); ?> Yields: <snip> [GLOBALS] => Array *RECURSION* [a] => 1 [b] => 2 [c] => ) So, $c is set, since it is contained in $GLOBALS. Yet it's not, because it's NULL. I vote for isset() on a NULL value should be true if it's in the namespace. Mark J. Hershenson markhers@green-ant.com http://www.green-ant.com/