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
