Re: PHP 7.1 - Address PHPSadness #28?
| From: | Lester Caine | Date: | Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:45:04 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PHP 7.1 - Address PHPSadness #28? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-88292@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 17/09/15 23:10, Rowan Collins wrote:
> You keep defending your use of NULL, but that is not what needs
> defending; it is the proposed use of an unset variable as a "very null"
> state which I am questioning. As far as I know, most databases do not
> have the notion of "does not exist" in tables or result sets - the
> result of a Left Join failing is the same type of Null as can be stored
> in a Nullable column.
The 'does not exist' requires that there IS a second field to carry the
flag that 'MOT' is not required, while simply leaving it out of the
result set then saves two fields. Where you have a range of data which
may or may not exist only returning the fields that do exist is a lot
faster than loading the whole process down with every field. Currently
one has to switch off errors where is_null may be used with a
non-existent field because there is no easy way to know that the field
... as a variable ... does not exist.
Deprecate expand() so it's use is not possible may be another 'fix'?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk