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:
for($i = 0; $i < 4; $i++) var_dump([]);
Will output 4 nulls.
— Rob