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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #4598

Re: loose thinking

Show all headers | View raw

El 24/01/2012 14:32, M. Strobel escribió/wrote:
> Okay I see it is well documented. I just started testing.
>
> 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.

Whatever implementation details are chosen, they need to be coherent.
I think your proposed behaviour would lead to pretty counter-intuitive 
situations:

$foo[NULL] = 33;
if( isset($foo[NULL]) ){
	echo $foo[NULL];
}else{
	echo '$foo[NULL] is not set'; // Seriously? WTF?
}


> 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.

The PHP language has basically evolved along the years as a living 
creature would do, unlike other languages that have actually been 
designed "on purpose", and it has lots of obvious inconsistencies. But 
you are basically suggesting that there's no place for loosely typed 
languages and I disagree with that. I'm very happy that I don't need to 
write three overloaded versions of the same method just to cope with all 
the expected input data types.

Whatever, if you do web stuff and you prefer strong typing I believe you 
do have quite a choice, from Java to .NET (VisualBasic and C#). Don't 
stick with PHP if you are not going to enjoy its good parts.


-- 
-- http://alvaro.es - Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain
-- Mi sitio sobre programación web: http://borrame.com
-- Mi web de humor satinado: http://www.demogracia.com
--

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