On 17 October 2016 at 21:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand the motivation for throwing a deprecation
> notice
> > instead of a warning. In particular, what is the action that will be
> taken
> > here in the next major version?
>
On 18 October 2016 at 12:53, Christoph M. Becke
On 17.10.2016 at 23:09, Craig Duncan wrote:
> On 17 October 2016 at 21:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the motivation for throwing a deprecation notice
>> instead of a warning. In particular, what is the action that will be taken
>> here in the next major version? I guess
On 17 October 2016 at 21:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the motivation for throwing a deprecation notice
> instead of a warning. In particular, what is the action that will be taken
> here in the next major version? I guess we would throw a warning and return
> false (inst
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Craig Duncan wrote:
> I've updated the RFC now to include count(null) which resolves the final
> open question.
>
> If there isn't any more feedback I'll open voting in a few days
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counting_non_countables
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
I'm not
I've updated the RFC now to include count(null) which resolves the final
open question.
If there isn't any more feedback I'll open voting in a few days
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counting_non_countables
Thanks,
Craig
On 11 October 2016 at 10:49, Craig Duncan wrote:
> I've updated the RFC now to take the deprecation route, and included
> counting scalars:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counting_non_countables
>
> The only remaining issue is what to do about handling *count(null)*
> I think this should be deprecat
I've updated the RFC now to take the deprecation route, and included
counting scalars:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counting_non_countables
The only remaining issue is what to do about handling *count(null)*
I think this should be deprecated too, but as it's the only case that
returns zero I wasn't s
On 4 October 2016 at 18:10, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> A confounding factor is that count() has an alias sizeof() and for people
> coming from a C-like background it is quite natural to try to apply
> sizeof() to a string in order to get its length. This will silently "work",
> but return a meaningl
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Craig Duncan wrote:
> On 4 October 2016 at 11:17, Leigh wrote:
>
> > You specifically mention that counting scalars is unaffected, is there
> > a legitimate use-case for being able to use count() on them?
> >
> > I'd say using count() on a string or an int also c
Hi,
On 04.10.16 11:32, Craig Duncan wrote:
> I'd like to propose the introduction of warning when counting objects that
> can't be counted.
>
> The default behaviour is to return 1 for these objects, which can be
> misleading and hide bugs when attempting to count iterable objects (eg
> Generator
On 4 October 2016 at 11:17, Leigh wrote:
> You specifically mention that counting scalars is unaffected, is there
> a legitimate use-case for being able to use count() on them?
>
> I'd say using count() on a string or an int also constitutes a hidden
> bug, as it also always returns 1 regardless
On 4 October 2016 at 10:32, Craig Duncan wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'd like to propose the introduction of warning when counting objects that
> can't be counted.
>
> The default behaviour is to return 1 for these objects, which can be
> misleading and hide bugs when attempting to count iterable ob
Hi everybody
I'd like to propose the introduction of warning when counting objects that
can't be counted.
The default behaviour is to return 1 for these objects, which can be
misleading and hide bugs when attempting to count iterable objects (eg
Generators). Adding a warning would alert developer
13 matches
Mail list logo
