> Le 19 avr. 2022 à 20:20, Andreas Hennings a écrit :
> A deprecation warning on is_callable() would imply that in a future
> version of PHP that call will be illegal.
No, in the case of `is_callable()`, the deprecation warning will imply that,
in a future version of PHP, the behaviour will
On 05/04/2022 19:45, Rowan Tommins wrote:
Good evening all,
I have opened voting on the RFC to Deprecate and Remove utf8_encode
and utf8_decode:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove_utf8_decode_and_utf8_encode
I am pleased to announce that this RFC has been Accepted with 33 Yes
votes and 2 No v
A deprecation warning on is_callable() would imply that in a future
version of PHP that call will be illegal.
But this is not the case.
is_callable() is meant to accept any value, and return true or false.
is_callable('static::method') will still be a valid call in future
versions, only the result
> Le 18 mars 2022 à 18:03, Juliette Reinders Folmer
> a écrit :
>
> On 18-3-2022 14:37, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>> On 16.03.2022 at 06:52, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:
>>> I've just been looking in detail at the Partially Supported Callables
>>> deprecation RFC:
>>> https://wiki.php.net/
On 19/04/2022 12:34, Craig Francis wrote:
The developers I work with would assume the last definition
I think you've somewhat missed my point. I wasn't talking about people's
habits or preferences, I was talking about different *scenarios* where
null is used to mean different things.
Yes,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 12:17, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> On 8 April 2022 18:34:52 BST, Craig Francis
> wrote:
> >I've written a new draft RFC to address the NULL coercion problems:
> >
> >https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency
>
>
> I'm sympathetic to the general problem you're trying to
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:01 AM David Rodrigues
wrote:
> > $foo[?'maynotexist'] // returns null and emits no warning
>
> In JS we have some like:
>
> foo['maynotexist']
> foo?.['maynotexist']
>
> In PHP could be:
>
> $foo['maynotexist']
> $foo?->['maynotexist']
>
You seem to be confusing two di
Hi Everyone,
After quite a long pause, I'd like to revive the discussion of readonly
classes and possibly put it to vote in the coming week(s).
If I'm following, then this RFC is about 90% syntactic sugar for putting
> `readonly` on all properties, plus disabling dynamic properties. That's
> the
