> The "instanceof" is counterintuitive for me compared to operators. Hmm interesting, might be possible to go that direction by making `T_IS_EQUAL` accept `class_name_reference`. I like that, biggest concern with this is what is the difference (if any) between ```php $object !== MyClass $object != MyClass ```
> If this isn't possible and `!instanceof` would be adopted, what about the following in addition to the proposed example? I definitely agree that those make sense, but I would say that they should prob. have their own discussion, but would be much easier to get through if this one would be accepted. > Why not "not" instead? The "!" in front of "i" in "!implements" Might be my limited knowledge on the subject, but by using `not`, we are making `not` a reserved keyword, which I think should be done really carefully. Best regards Oliver Nybroe (he/him) On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 12:19, Michał Marcin Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > pon., 13 gru 2021 o 12:10 Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Heya, >> >> While I definitely agree with this, and after more than 10 years of PHP I >> still have the tendency to write `if ($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; >> $object !extends MyClass; >> ``` >> > > Why not "not" instead? The "!" in front of "i" in "!implements" is almost > not visible which IMO could get easily ignored unintentionally. > Instead constructs like "$foo not implements stdClass" have higher > visibility and are currently a syntax error. > > Cheers, > Michał Marcin Brzuchalski >
