On 16/06/13 05:43, Brian Wolff wrote:
On 6/16/13, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
It's 10 times slower than doing === null, which is a bit trivial in context, but nonetheless a fact, and it's also a bit easier to read, especially when doing the inverse (i.e., doing !is_null( ... ) versus !== null). Also, there's no functional difference between the two.
Easier to read is debatable. !is_null( $foo ) reads directly like an english sentence "Not is null". Ok, maybe an english sentence with bad grammar, but I hardly find it unclear.
I'd say it's easier to read because ! is the same size and shape as i so !is_null() may easily be overlooked as is_null(), while !== sticks out from ===