Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75223
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain dds.nl from 85.17.251.144 cause and error)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:47:29 +0200 (CEST)
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU5KoZ2BByGWJeVVxHV3L7rOJjFNjQ_i1-xFnR2vSm-X3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.0.999.1407031342330.2935@swan.dds.nl>
References: <alpine.LNX.0.999.1407031108350.526@swan.dds.nl>
 <CAEZPtU5KoZ2BByGWJeVVxHV3L7rOJjFNjQ_i1-xFnR2vSm-X3Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] not_null function
From: xen@dds.nl (Xen)

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?

> 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.