On 22 April 2022 02:02:58 BST, php-internals_nos...@adviesenzo.nl wrote: >I agree it would be a good idea to run a package analysis, but to be fair, in >all honesty that should have been done for the original RFC, which was >completely missing an impact analysis.
That's a fair point, but of course "somebody else should have done it already" isn't a good excuse not to do it now. >3. As for the pattern being common or not - the fact that I found it so easily >in multiple random projects which I elected to test the sniff against, makes >me believe the pattern is not _uncommon_. Since there has been some misunderstanding, the usage I think we need to look for is where a deprecation notice would *not* be useful. In other words, are there people using is_callable in such a way that even if a value like "parent::foo" changes from returning "true" to "false", there won't be anything that needs changing, because the code is equally "happy" with both return values? I freely admit that I can't think of any such usage off the top of my head, but I wouldn't have thought of some of the examples already raised either. If an actual search fails to find such usages, or provides evidence that it is very rare, then I am absolutely in favour of adding a deprecation notice. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
