> That suggests maybe the name should communicate "safe for JavaScript"; or
> more generally "safe for 64-bit IEEE floating point".
>
> is_safe_for_js()
> is_safe_for_float()
I'm not sure we should mention Javascript, because it's actually
related to floating point storage.
> I'm not sure if acc
> Le 25 juil. 2025 à 18:37, Daniel Scherzer a
> écrit :
>
> Hi internals,
>
> The #[\Attribute] attribute is used to mark classes as being usable as
> attributes. It currently does not trigger any error if added to a trait,
> interface, enum, or abstract class. However, if any of those *we
> Le 14 juil. 2025 à 18:23, Gina P. Banyard a écrit :
> Hello internals,
>
> Similar to the mass deprecation RFC, I would like to propose the addition of
> a few warnings in certain situations:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/warnings-php-8-5
>
> I am expecting these 4 sub-proposals to be mostly
On 26/07/2025 07:13, Alexandre Daubois wrote:
The idea is to have a function that receives an integer or a float and
returns bool if the provided argument is inside the safe Javascript
integer interval, namely [-(2^53)+1 ; (2^53)-1].
That suggests maybe the name should communicate "safe for Ja
On Sat, Jul 26, 2025, at 13:29, Juris Evertovskis wrote:
> Hey,
>
> > if you are not going to call ReflectionAttribute::newInstance(), then you
> > don't
> > really need to mark the trait/interface/enum/abstract class as an attribute.
>
> Personally I never knew the `#[\Attribute]` is only r
Hey,
> if you are not going to call ReflectionAttribute::newInstance(), then you
> don't
> really need to mark the trait/interface/enum/abstract class as an attribute.
Personally I never knew the `#[\Attribute]` is only required to do
`->newInstance()`.
The docs make it seem like it’s
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, at 18:33, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> The #[\Attribute] attribute is used to mark classes as being usable as
> attributes. It currently does not trigger any error if added to a trait,
> interface, enum, or abstract class. However, if any of those *were* use