On 4 July 2014 08:43, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@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 >
