Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111024
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <21C5073D-3F39-49DA-8686-E027AE780793@joshbruce.dev>
 <CAKuGYLT-31Bjav6bKBYDBqPc6wb41FzebzoSWBmt9+4=OdRAYA@mail.gmail.com> <132a2f9c-331c-48c9-8c15-f0f7c9392341@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <132a2f9c-331c-48c9-8c15-f0f7c9392341@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:04:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKuGYLRntk1i-9tUvwJktCOKHNeACdA9o1ksXX3cPBO3XMRevA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb6f3a05aa7d1466"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] Objects can be declared falsifiable
From: matthewmatthew@gmail.com (Matthew Brown)

--000000000000cb6f3a05aa7d1466
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
>
> I don't see how that would happen.  What non-pathological case would allow
> for $foo && !$foo == true?
>
>
I suppose something a little less pathological would be

`$collection && $collection->pop() && !$collection`

which is still pretty icky (to me at least).

The other implication is that this is now possibly *not* a bug:

if (!$foo) {
  $foo->bar();
}

which, again, would ever-so-slightly reduce the effectiveness of static
analysis.

--000000000000cb6f3a05aa7d1466--