On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:47:26 +0100
Hartmut Holzgraefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sterling hughes wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but while we're getting all
> > crazy with breaking compat in 4.1 and/or 5.0, why not go ahead and
> > finally fix empty("0") to return false, like it really should (a
> > string with 0 in it, is *not* imho an empty string).
> >
> > -Sterling
> >
> >
>
> as there are reasons for both sides ...
>
> ... maybe we should have empty() and empty0() or so ? ...
The empty function is ambigous. It is not is_null or isset (is_set as usual ? ;), and
I don't use it anymore. IMO 0 is not an empty content. An empty content will be an
array without any cells (string is an array b.e.).
The problem should appear when people don't take care about variable types, php is
very flexible, this fact masks sometimes basic rules.
pa
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
