> Yes, that's the type of thing that I think needs to be included as > part of the RFC. > > Including a list of all the (or at least the important) functions that > would be affected by this RFC should be made both for clarity and so > that people can think through any edge cases.
Absolutely. I was hoping to gather some thoughts and opinions first while I work on the implementation before I submit an official RFC. I'll make sure to include what you've mentioned, I completely agree. On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 11:14, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote: > On 22 June 2018 at 12:31, Rudi Theunissen <rtheunis...@php.net> wrote: > > > > >> I think if you want to push the RFC forward, a really quite strong > >> case needs to be made for why having it be a language level feature is > >> so much better (or even at all better) than having it be implemented > >> in userland. > > > > > > > 1. You can't override the behaviour of `<`, `<=`, `>`, `>=`, `==`, `!=` > with > > a userland implementation. > > 2. Therefore, you won't be able to affect the internals of array > functions > > like `in_array`, `sort` etc. > > > Yes, that's the type of thing that I think needs to be included as > part of the RFC. > > Including a list of all the (or at least the important) functions that > would be affected by this RFC should be made both for clarity and so > that people can think through any edge cases. > > cheers > Dan >
