Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #4600
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: loose thinking |
| Date | 2012-01-24 17:02 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <4F1ED5FF.6070701@arnowelzel.de> (permalink) |
| References | <9o7h5fFu6rU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> <jfma85$qmb$1@dont-email.me> <9o7q84F33fU1@mid.uni-berlin.de> |
M. Strobel, 2012-01-24 14:32: > Am 24.01.2012 14:04, schrieb "Álvaro G. Vicario": >> El 24/01/2012 11:57, M. Strobel escribió/wrote: >>> I hate this sloppiness of PHP: [...] >>> There is no difference between an empty string and null in array indexing. That is >>> stupid. Why does the language not just respect my definitions? >> >> Because your make your definitions fit in something that already have a previous >> definition. String keys must be integers or strings, as documented: >> >> http://es.php.net/manual/en/language.types.array.php#language.types.array.syntax.array-func [...] > I am angry about it because not even isset() respects the null value here. I think it > makes more sense this way: isset($a[null]) should return false, because there is no > null index. > > The point is that the designers of PHP (if you can talk about design here) probably > meant to help programmers in not making all these hideous type distinctions, but the > outcome is you have to be really careful about loose comparison and unwanted type > conversion, having to write even more if constructs. Well - the roots of PHP are PHP/FI which could not be called a "designed" language. See <http://www.php.net/manual/phpfi2.php#history> *scnr* -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 11:57 +0100
Re: loose thinking "Álvaro G. Vicario" <alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX@demogracia.com.invalid> - 2012-01-24 14:04 +0100
Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 14:32 +0100
Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 13:41 +0000
Re: loose thinking Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2012-01-24 09:35 -0500
Re: loose thinking "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-01-24 08:16 -0600
Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 17:35 +0100
Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 16:59 +0000
Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 19:11 +0100
Re: loose thinking Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-25 04:49 +0100
Re: loose thinking "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2012-01-25 07:58 -0600
Re: loose thinking Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-01-25 20:37 +0100
Re: loose thinking "Álvaro G. Vicario" <alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX@demogracia.com.invalid> - 2012-01-24 16:20 +0100
Re: loose thinking The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 15:43 +0000
Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 19:43 +0100
Re: loose thinking Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2012-01-24 17:02 +0100
Re: loose thinking "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2012-01-24 17:28 +0100
csiph-web