Re: Inconsistency of empty() and isset() ?

isset() does more than check the existance in a hash table, because this the following is true: $foo = null; isset($foo); // returns false, even though $foo is initialized echo $foo; // will not cause a NOTICE, because $foo is initialized - Ron ""Richard Lynch"" <ceo@l-i-e.com> wrote in message news:3516.209.254.223.2.1145240948.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com... > On Sun, April 16, 2006 7:38 pm, Pierre wrote: > > isset and empty share the same implementation, the only difference is > > what they return (in short). They behave "the same", they should > > continue do so if empty accept many arguments. > > Actually... > > Unless the docs are lying to me... > > empty() checks the contents of the value, and does something quite > different based on the value found. > > isset() just plain checks in the hash table[s] if the variable has > been assigned, and that's it. > > Plus, the meaning of empty() changed in some a way with "0" between > versions 3 and 4, and then again with respect to objects with no > properties between 4 and 5. > > isset() has never changed its meaning out from under me. :-) > > So, while the guts of the function may be the same in source, there's > got to be some kind of flag or something going on for empty() to be > checking all those values, no??? > > -- > Like Music? > http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm