Hi,
Joe Watkins wrote:
Afternoon Andrea,
A case can be made that the binary cast might at some point do
something: "(binary) $ustring"
There is no case whatever for the literal b prefix, it will *never*
have a function if we are not changing the default string representation.
If we do adopt a literal prefix for unicode strings, it's going to be
rather confusing to learn that u"" does something and b"" is also
supported, but b"" doesn't, and has never done anything.
Well, that's not quite fair. b"" and "" are equivalent, u"" wouldn't be.
It's only as useless as, say, the unary + operator. I can imagine it
being used to be explicit about using a binary string.
In any case, I don't think that it not doing anything that a bare string
literal does makes enough of a case to remove it. It's going to bite
some people if we remove this, and for what gain?
OP: I think this should be split into two RFC's and voted on
separately, it certainly can't be merged by anyone as a PR.
The two are related, if we're to get rid of one, we should get rid of
both. If there's BC concerns for (binary), I suspect there's also
breakage for b"". (binary) is also “useless”, insofar as you could just
use (string).
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
https://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
