Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #4601

Re: loose thinking

Show all headers | View raw

Am 24.01.2012 17:02, schrieb Arno Welzel:
> 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*
> 

I did not want to be too harsh here. When I started with PHP I wondered why I had to
put the dollar sign on every variable, the language designers did not know the
difference between a variable and a value.  Than I  had to rename all my .php3
scripts to .php4 and got used to it.

/Str.

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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