As soon as I have my requested write permission in the rfc namespace i will update it.
-- Dennis Haarbrink 2011/6/3 Pierrick Charron <pierr...@webstart.fr> > Hi, > > The RFC was supposed to be a draft (i didn't really added it in the good > section) and was written more to introduce the idea and make people think > about it. > Feel free to update it with any idea, concern you may have. > > Pierrick > > > On 3 June 2011 03:26, Dennis Haarbrink <dhaarbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One thing I would really like to see in 5.4 is enums. >> There is already an RFC for that: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/enum >> >> This was discussed in february this year, but no consensus was reached. >> IIRC, the most notable problems were: >> - What is the 'value' of enum constant: string or int, user defined >> scalar, >> defaults >> - Ability to make enums more 'class like', some people wanted to be able >> to >> add methods. >> >> Another thing which was discussed (and I think most people agreed on >> that), >> but is not in the RFC: type hinting in method signatures. >> >> >> I think we should keep this simple proposal simple, let it be an enum in >> all >> its simplicity. >> The toughest part would be to decide what would be the default value. Some >> proposed to use the name of the constant, which is imho best for >> debuggability (i like this one the best), or an auto incrementing int, >> saying that it is better performance wise and which is more analog with >> mysql's enum type. >> >> >> So, to sum up: >> - Do we really need enum level methods? >> - Need to reach consensus on default values (strings vs auto inc. ints) >> - RFC needs to be updated, explaining the type hinting of enums in method >> signatures >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Dennis Haarbrink >> > >
