Re: not_null function
| From: | Kris Craig | Date: | Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:43:25 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: not_null function | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-75244@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Not any that I'm aware of, and I personally have never used is_null().
> > I share your opinion that we don't really need is_null(), but with BC
> > in mind, I don't think it would get removed.
>
> There's nothing to remove. Every type has is_* function, including null
> type. If is_null() is offensive to somebody for some reason, that person
> is free to not use it.
>
I'm not offended by it and I get that it was initially created for the sake
of having an is_* function for each type. I'm just trying to understand
why it's *still* there and why it's not a language construct. It serves no
unique purpose and has a negative performance impact.
What would be wrong with changing it from a function to a language
construct like isset() and empty()? If is_null() were the equivalent of
!isset( $var ) || $var === NULL, it would make a hell of a lot more sense
than what's there now.
--Kris