Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75246
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSwdee_aTEMX3LGWMCdGc9GV0SC0+6vZBO5pwxik31RAPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LNX.0.999.1407031108350.526@swan.dds.nl>
 <CAEZPtU5KoZ2BByGWJeVVxHV3L7rOJjFNjQ_i1-xFnR2vSm-X3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.0.999.1407031342330.2935@swan.dds.nl> <CAPhkiZzDcc4YFYLNaPcCjKYPusxp8OdZJwwtmWpOzDWvJd8kbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOpQSxuHKsHxQ3iQ8K8UJ12TDRWVAxH4fzQVfQvyf4Z98jyFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPhkiZzFc0d80=dCyR=spe6r5GkWa1aZVp7z1cAyZKiqR+medg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53B65712.2070207@sugarcrm.com> <CAKOpQSwdee_aTEMX3LGWMCdGc9GV0SC0+6vZBO5pwxik31RAPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:00:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxK8xw0VoQo9kV4R9=X_mAkW7RnzazdurJuXdXSPOhai2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3f4d45aa25804fd5987c0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] not_null function
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a11c3f4d45aa25804fd5987c0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 4 July 2014 08:43, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't use it often, and there are certainly other ways to achieve the
same result, but I have been known to employ the function as a callback
(e.g. to array_filter()) on occasion.  I'm not saying there's solid reason
to keep it around, just giving one example of a) where I've made use of it
before, and b) where changing it to a language construct would be
counter-productive.

Can we move on to frying bigger fish?!


> --Kris
>

--001a11c3f4d45aa25804fd5987c0--