On 12/04/2017 17:21, Adam Baratz wrote: >> >>> I'd suggest adding a warning to the manual instead. >> >> I think that's a requirement in any case. > > > I'd be most comfortable with this approach. I'd worry about adding a > PDO::PARAM_NUMERIC type without investigating how it needs to function for > each DB, which feels like scope creep. If it starts off as an alias for > PDO::PARAM_STR, there could be issues updating it to work correctly, > especially if the right design involves modeling the precision somewhere. I > added a "Future Scope" section covering this. > > Let me know if there are major problems with this or other points to cover. > Otherwise, I'll aim to open voting on Monday.
Let's just agree to disagree. I believe they should be investigated and proposed in a single RFC. Having just one and relying on an obscure documentation warning is not enough IMHO. Even your RFC claims that it should be used for numeric types :( "This test was repeated using the numeric type for the number column." Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
