2016-09-25 20:58 GMT+02:00 Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com>:
> On Sep 26, 2016 12:09 AM, "Niklas Keller" <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > > > > 2016-09-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de>: > >> > >> On 25.09.2016 at 11:29, Leigh wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 06:29 Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Also this behavior is clearly documented: > >> >> > >> >> http://th1.php.net/manual/en/function.get-class.php > >> >> > >> >> "If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is > >> >> returned." > >> >> > >> >> I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean > is this > >> >> behavior and I recommend the (future) RMs to veto this change. > >> > > >> > This is ambiguous at best. > >> > > >> > "Omitted" and "Not omitted but set to null" are different things. > >> > >> However, the changelog entry for 5.3.0 states: > >> > >> | NULL became the default value for object, so passing NULL to object > >> | now has the same result as not passing any value. > >> > >> And that's what I would expect when reading the function signature; > >> after all, NULL is the default value of $object. > > > > > > I think what matters is the documentation of the return value, not the > changelog. > > > >> Returns the name of the class of which object is an instance. Returns > FALSE if object is not an object. > >> > >> If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is > returned. > > > > > > It clearly says "omitted", that's passing nothing at all. Passing `null` > doesn't omit an argument, it passes `null`. > > > >> I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean is > this > > > > > > I guess most code that might pass null is probably broken, do you have a > use case where the current behavior even makes sense? > > Probably is sadly not a fact. > > We restore it because it was breaking code. If I remember correctly it was > due to some other non existent features that allows the same (or not > working). > > All I am saying is this is a BC break with little to no value because what > willing to support 7.1+ only can simply use the alternatives. > Which alternatives?
