Re: [RFC] !instanceof operator - reaction measuremen

Heya, While I definitely agree with this, and after more than 10 years of PHP I still have the tendency to write if ($object !instanceof MyClass) anyway. Would it be possible, or would it collide with constants to do the following? ``` $object === MyClass; $object !== MyClass; ``` The reason I'm hoping this would be possible, is that I often have brainlag trying to write "instanceof" and I either make several typos, or I end up with "instance" and it takes me an error message to realize I forgot the "of". The "instanceof" is counterintuitive for me compared to operators. If this isn't possible and !instanceof would be adopted, what about the following in addition to the proposed example? ``` $object implements MyInterface; $object !implements MyInterface; $object extends MyClass; $object !extends MyClass; ``` On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:53 AM Oliver Nybroe <olivernybroe@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to create my first RFC proposing adding a new operator > !instanceof named > T_NOT_INSTANCEOF. > > The purpose of this RFC is to add syntactic sugar for checking if an object > is not an instance of something else. > The current syntax for checking not instance of looks the following way > ```php > !$object instanceof MyClass > ``` > When I read this I read it as: > Negate the $object variable and check if that is an instance of > MyClass. > > My proposed operator would allow for the following syntax > ```php > $object !instanceof MyClass > ``` > This is for me and people I have spoken to a much clearer syntax. > > > Some arguments on other ways the not instance of can currently be written > ```php > !($object instanceof MyClass) // Wrapping in parenthesis > ! $object instanceof MyClass // Simply adding spacing > ``` > My main problem with these alternative syntaxes is the readability when > added inside an if condition > ```php > if(!($object instanceof MyClass)) { ... > if(! $object instanceof MyClass) { ... > ``` > compared to > ```php > if($object !instanceof MyClass) { ... > ``` > > > In regards to implementing the feature, I wouldn't mind trying to do that > myself. I believe this change is relatively simple in the parser and AST > and something I should be able to figure out. > > > What do people think about this? Would love to clarify if needed. > > Best regards > Oliver Nybroe (he/him) >