On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 11:00, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 09:54, Rob Landers wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 00:19, Morgan wrote: > > On 2024-06-26 08:24, Rob Landers wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, at 20:23, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > > >> If null array values were indeed unobservable, then [] would be === to > >> [null] (or at least ==), and a foreach over [null] would result in 0 > >> iterations. But neither of those are the case. > > > > I think there is a difference between an empty array and a null, and > > that is (hopefully) self-evident. I’m talking about the infinite nulls > > IN the array. You can write a for loop of all possible keys until the > > end of the universe, and all you will get is null. This is fairly easy > > to prove. I'll wait... :p > > > What about the difference between an empty array an an array that > contains a null (Ilija's example)? > > echo count([]); > echo count([null]); > echo count([null, null]); > echo count([null, null, null]); > echo count([null, null, null, null]); > ... > > You're arguing that these are all the same array? > > > If you are accessing them by index, yes, they are all the same array. > There is no observable difference. I think we already covered that count() > would show the difference between them since it’s actually a count of known > indices: > > > Sorry, I’ve not yet had enough coffee, this should be: > > $arr = []; > > for($i = 0; $i < 4; $i++) var_dump($arr[$i]); > > > Will output 4 nulls. > > > — Rob > > > — Rob >
You are only half-correct. It will also output 4 undefined index warnings in strict_types=1 mode :) https://3v4l.org/DJ4AI -- Arvīds Godjuks +371 26 851 664 arvids.godj...@gmail.com Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius
