Possible Duplicate:
What's the difference between is_null($var) and ($var === null)?
PHP has two (that I know of, and three if you count isset()
) methods to determine if a value is null: is_null()
and === null
. I have heard, but not confirmed, that === null
is faster, but in a code review someone strongly suggested that I use is_null()
instead as it is specifically designed for the null-evaluation purpose. He also started talking about math or something.
Anyway, the fact that is_null()
is apparently slower also leads me to believe that it's doing more than === null
does and is probably preferred. Is there any reason to use one or the other? Is one always preferred? What about isset()
?
As an addendum to possibly not get this question closed, what about isset()
vs. is_null()
? It seems that all isset()
will do is suppress the notice, so unless you actually want a notice for an undefined variable, any reason to use is_null()
instead? How about if you know the variable is initialized at the time?
Finally, is there any mathematical reason to prefer is_null()
over === null
? Something about null not being comparable?
There is absolutely no difference in functionality between is_null
and === null
.
The only difference is that is_null
is a function and thus
array_map('is_null', $array)
.Personally, I use null ===
whenever I can, as it is more consistent with false ===
and true ===
checks.
If you want, you can check the code: is_identical_function
(===
) and php_is_type
(is_null
) do the same thing for the IS_NULL
case.
The related isset()
language construct checks whether the variable actually exists before doing the null
check. So isset($undefinedVar)
will not throw a notice.
Also note that isset()
may sometimes return true
even though the value is null
- this is the case when it is used on an overloaded object, i.e. if the object defines an offsetExists
/__isset
method that returns true
even if the offset is null
(this is actually quite common, because people use array_key_exists
in offsetExists
/__isset
).