Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121547
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Brady Wetherington <bwetherington@grokability.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:08:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CALp5e-_MssXqZMLCPOYopA4X7_BSSRyvVAmg2xqxMk+AoPXM7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: New RFC : empty() function
From: internals@lists.php.net ("Brady Wetherington via internals")

> I have posted a new RFC at this link https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_function
> where I suggested some improvements to the standard built-in empty()
> function and provided a number of examples.

Is your "is_empty()" function equivalent to something like:

function is_empty($param = null)
{
    return empty($param) && $param !== false && $param !== 0 && $param !== 0.0;
}

If so, that might actually be kinda nice? I was looking for something
like that the other day.

Regardless, I wouldn't do the BC-break; I'd be more inclined to (very
begrudgingly) leave empty() and warn against its use, and have
is_empty() as a new thing. Maybe for some future deprecation or
removal?

I also do like the idea that someone else mentioned here about being
able to possibly start to get away from @'ing variables with a
solution like this.

-B.