Hi
On 9/5/23 00:34, Jorg Sowa wrote:
Introducing a brand-new RoundingMode enum (using union types) I
suggested in my first email would nicely solve the naming problem and
would also make the API more obvious to use due to stronger typing in
the long run.
That's also interesting idea and I would push it, however I'm afraid about
the naming of namespace. I recollect some of the RFCs were rejected simply
I didn't intent to suggest putting the enum into a namespace. It would
be `\RoundingMode` (i.e. within the global namespace). I'm not sure how
you got the impression I suggest a namespace.
because of the namespace. If there is a guideline for the namespace of core
functions I would willingly get familiar to it. Otherwise, I don't want to
For the reference, there is a namespace guideline here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions
It doesn't really apply here, because `round()` is in ext/standard.
open Pandora box only because of the namespace of Enum. It would also bring
BC to the function, unless we would accept both enum and old constants.
Yes it would accept both the enum and the constants. In the long run the
constants could be deprecated. Alternatively the constants could be
aliases for the enum values, but this might break compatibility for
users that use the raw integers instead of the constants. While this is
"not a good idea", it might have happened.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
