On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 4:21 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
>
> Having recently been bitten by floor() returning a float even though the
> value that comes back is logically an int, I would be fully in support of
> "and returns an int" versions of these functions in core.
>
What about adding a third,
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:01 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Even for those who use static analysis, most (afaik) don't have it
> running constantly in local development and this RFC would prevent
> people wondering why their code is behaving surprisingly before it is
> static analysed.
>
It takes care
It's a reasonable approach. Thanks for clearing it up.
Kind regards,
Jorg
Hi
On 5/22/23 00:08, Jorg Sowa wrote:
> Hello,
> As this is a new function do you consider any namespace for it? Based on
> passed RFC[1] allowing for namespaces in bundled extensions it would be
> nice to introduce new functions with namespace. Maybe the namespace could
> be voted in the RFC sepa
Hi Tim
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:37 PM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> I'm now opening discussion for the RFC "Marking overridden methods
> (#[\Override])":
>
> RFC: Marking overridden methods (#[\Override])
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/marking_overriden_methods
We've already talked in private, but let me
Amazing wording Dan: great way to drive people away. YIKES.
Marco Pivetta
https://mastodon.social/@ocramius
https://ocramius.github.io/
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 13:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 09:12, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure this RFC is really relevant...
On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 12:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> So one should be able to see there is interestunless of course
> someone is so bad at basic human empathy, that they can't accept other
> people's lived experiences as valid, and will only accept something as
> 'good programming practice' i
On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 18:58, David Gebler wrote:
>
> this is exactly the kind of check which you would
> expect to be done at the static analysis stage
Even for those who use static analysis, most (afaik) don't have it
running constantly in local development and this RFC would prevent
people won
> New function(s) on the other hand sounds like an ugly solution as well
> only helping people explicitly searching for it after they got bitten at
> least once.
What about deprecating round() in favor of round_float() and
round_int()? or something.
Robert Landers
Software Engineer
Utrecht NL
--
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 09:12, Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
> I am not sure this RFC is really relevant... Would it perhaps
> make sense to have this in userland first, in phpstan or psalm
> plugins, to see if there is interest?
The RFC lists other languages where an equivalent is available, and we
can
On 21.05.23 17:20, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2023, at 7:18 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
On 21 May 2023 13:00:30 BST, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 06:16, Marc wrote:
Do you think this could be an acceptable BC-break
No. Suggesting changing a 30 year old maths operations
Hi
On 5/22/23 00:08, Jorg Sowa wrote:
As this is a new function do you consider any namespace for it? Based on
passed RFC[1] allowing for namespaces in bundled extensions it would be
nice to introduce new functions with namespace. Maybe the namespace could
be voted in the RFC separately?
[…]
[1]
12 matches
Mail list logo
