Re: not_null function

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:

that's why we have is_null, and NULL is a type, not a value btw. also isset is an operator, not a function. (referred in other replies).

Alright, I stand corrected. But if NULL or null is a type, then comparing against it with == or === would also be wrong, right?

is_null is consistent with the other is_* functions. A programming language is not a natural language so grammatical or semantic imperfections are totally valid.

That is just your unfounded opinion. In my view, which I believe is based on the reasoning that I have espoused today, and just now, semantics are important because when things are meaningless they confuse us people. And us programmers are people who use language. And we require language to be natural and congruent so we can easily grasp it and avoid making errors. As to the "practical" implications that Andrey Andreeve mentioned in his reply. I shall not reply to that message, but if you insist on arguing that semantics are irrelevant to any degree, you are basically arguing that there is a good reason to make language harder to understand, read and write because of some other reason that has nothing to do with it (like how many constructs already exist).

between the is_* functions, isset or ?:, I do not see a need to add the exact same features for a non technical reason.

That is find if you see it that way, but I would rather have you answer with reasoning and arguments instead of just opinions and statements.