It should not be __isset
,because isset()
is not the same thing as empty()
As it says on this page:
__isset() is triggered by calling isset() or empty() on inaccessible properties.
There is no dedicated magic-method for empty()
If __isset() returns true, empty() will then invoke __get() to check the value of the property.
As an addition to Inspire's answer:
class Foo {
public function __isset($name) {
echo "public function __isset($name)\n";
return 'bar'===$name;
}
public function __get($name) {
echo "public function __get($name)\n";
return 'bar'===$name ? 0 : NULL;
}
}
$foo = new Foo;
echo empty($foo->foo) ? ' empty' : ' not empty', "\n";
echo empty($foo->bar) ? ' empty' : ' not empty', "\n";
the output is
public function __isset(foo)
empty
public function __isset(bar)
public function __get(bar)
empty
meaning for the first property (foo) empty() only invoked __isset() which returned false -> empty($foo->foo)===true
For the second property (bar) __isset() was invoked and it returned true. Then the property is fetched via __get() and interpreted as a boolean value (see http://docs.php.net/language.types.type-juggling). And since (bool)0 is false
, empty() also returns true
for empty($foo->bar)
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With