Just for the kicks, I ran a small benchmark: 10,000,000 calls to is_null -> 3.93504405022 10,000,000 calls === null -> 2.06881403923
So theoretically, is_null is almost twice as slow as doing '==='. Then again, in the real world: 100 calls to is_null -> 5.19752502441E-05 100 calls === null -> 2.09808349609E-05 (how many scripts you know that call is_null a hundred time) the difference is in the microseconds range... I would call that negligible. While using === instead of is_null() is considered a good coding standard, and should be done as much as possible, I think that Peter is right, and it's not a bad idea to give up this practice for the sake of readability from time to time. My .02 Agorot ;) Shahar. Peter Hodge wrote: > Sometimes it's a more consistent to use is_null() when you are using the other > type-checking functions in the same place. For example: > > if(is_int($value) || is_float($value) || is_null($value)) > > regards, > Peter > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > On Yahoo!7 > Break a world record with Total Girl's World’s Largest Slumber Party > http://www.totalgirl.com.au/slumberparty > >
