Re: wrong implementation of isset()?

From: Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:55:33 +0000
Subject: Re: wrong implementation of isset()?
References: 1 2  Groups: php.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to php-dev+get-45907@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
Perhaps, in order to maintain compatibility, we should re-document is_set, create the documentation for is_null, and look into creating a new function that will determine if something has "ever been inside the namespace", regardless of its current value, or absence of value.
we should just define (and document) this similar to Andrei (note, I do not use the word "the same" I use that word equal, what means different things): NULL equals absence_of_value equals absence_of_variable_in_namespace I can imagine no case where people would need to differentiate between NULL and never been in namespace, we should not allow this, otherwise we would introduce the differentiation into a third state, non existent, what raises the wtf-factor and is not required as far as I can think andré -- · André Langhorst · t: +49 571 3201801 · · waldschrott@php.net · m: +49 173 9558736 · · PHP Quality Assurance · http://qa.php.net ·

« previous php.dev (#45907) next »