Morning internals,
The abolish short votes RFC has been accepted and the Voting document
updated.
Cheers
Joe
Hi internals,
Since there is no more questions for more than one week, I’ve opened the
vote on the spread operator in array expression RFC. The vote lasts two
weeks and it closes at 7-May.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/spread_operator_for_array#vote
Regards,
CHU Zhaowei
Hello,
"Since we can define array element by reference now, it doesn't make sense
to change the way of storing values just because it's unpacking. In other
words, the conversion of how values are stored isn't part of spread
operator."
yes it is; no matter what you "think"; banding reality/facts o
On Monday, April 8, 2019 9:22 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> This looks reasonable to me. My only concern would be the "by-reference
> passing" section of the RFC. The current proposal states that [...$arr] will
> preserve references in $arr, which is not the behavior I would expect.
>
> Is this cho
Discussion topic:
- Not 100% needed: is the same that says "nullable typehint is not 100%
need because we can just check in time". This argument has no sense, once
that PHP supports nullable casting for parameters typehint, and the
nullable casting is just a way to fit the argument to parameter ty
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 9:52 AM Guilliam Xavier
wrote:
>
> Hello internals,
>
> David and I would like to open the discussion on our joint RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable-casting
>
> Mainly, it would enable to use e.g. `(?int)$x` besides `(int)$x`.
>
> We are looking forward to your feed
