Heya,
While I definitely agree with this, and after more than 10 years of PHP I
still have the tendency to write `if ($object !instanceof MyClass)` anyway.
Would it be possible, or would it collide with constants to do the
following?
```
$object === MyClass;
$object !== MyClass;
```
The reason I'm hoping this would be possible, is that I often have brainlag
trying to write "instanceof" and I either make several typos, or I end up
with "instance" and it takes me an error message to realize I forgot the
"of". The "instanceof" is counterintuitive for me compared to operators.
If this isn't possible and `!instanceof` would be adopted, what about the
following in addition to the proposed example?
```
$object implements MyInterface;
$object !implements MyInterface;
$object extends MyClass;
$object !extends MyClass;
```
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:53 AM Oliver Nybroe <olivernyb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to create my first RFC proposing adding a new operator
> `!instanceof` named `T_NOT_INSTANCEOF`.
>
> The purpose of this RFC is to add syntactic sugar for checking if an object
> is not an instance of something else.
> The current syntax for checking not instance of looks the following way
> ```php
> !$object instanceof MyClass
> ```
> When I read this I read it as:
> Negate the `$object` variable and check if that is an instance of
> `MyClass`.
>
> My proposed operator would allow for the following syntax
> ```php
> $object !instanceof MyClass
> ```
> This is for me and people I have spoken to a much clearer syntax.
>
>
> Some arguments on other ways the not instance of can currently be written
> ```php
> !($object instanceof MyClass) // Wrapping in parenthesis
> ! $object instanceof MyClass // Simply adding spacing
> ```
> My main problem with these alternative syntaxes is the readability when
> added inside an `if` condition
> ```php
> if(!($object instanceof MyClass)) { ...
> if(! $object instanceof MyClass) { ...
> ```
> compared to
> ```php
> if($object !instanceof MyClass) { ...
> ```
>
>
> In regards to implementing the feature, I wouldn't mind trying to do that
> myself. I believe this change is relatively simple in the parser and AST
> and something I should be able to figure out.
>
>
> What do people think about this? Would love to clarify if needed.
>
> Best regards
> Oliver Nybroe (he/him)
>
