On Mar 18, 2015 6:42 PM, "Patrick ALLAERT" <patrickalla...@php.net> wrote: > > Le lun. 16 mars 2015 à 21:34, Matthew Leverton <lever...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > (Although the irony of using =1 instead of =true isn't lost on me!) > > > > Yes, I mentioned[1] that funny aspect earlier. > > 0 or 1 is explicitly required in order to update the boolean behind it > while true/false generates a fatal error with "strict_types declaration > must have 0 or 1 as its value". > > [1] https://twitter.com/patrick_allaert/status/568167144363560961
Ok. You do not like this RFC, we get it. Now, what's about actually being constructive and if you find bug (and please under the context of this RFC and how it works) please report a bug so it can be fixed.
