Re: not_null function

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Xen <xen@dds.nl> wrote: > 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? Technically, yes; but in an expression null is also the representative value for the type null as a convenient way to check whether something is of the type null. > > > 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. > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- -- Tjerk