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