On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 12:49, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> consistency, in general, would be a nice change of pace so you don't have
> to keep in mind that there are slight differences in behaviour depending on
> what you call - a built-in function or a userland one.
>
This is my view as well. Anothe
чт, 6 июн. 2019 г. в 10:55, Nikita Popov :
> Hi internals,
>
> The https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_type_errors RFC resolved one of
> the
> big differences in argument handling between internal and userland
> functions. This change allowed us to add return type information (available
> through
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:10 PM Côme Chilliet wrote:
> I’m not sure if this is exactly the same topic, but one problem I have
> with how internal functions are handling arguments is how the absence of an
> optional argument is treated.
>
> I have stumbled across functions documented as functionna
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 10:54, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> The https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_type_errors RFC resolved one of
> the
> big differences in argument handling between internal and userland
> functions. This change allowed us to add return type information (available
> t
I’m not sure if this is exactly the same topic, but one problem I have with how
internal functions are handling arguments is how the absence of an optional
argument is treated.
I have stumbled across functions documented as functionname($arg1, $arg2 =
NULL) which behaves differently when called
Hi internals,
The https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_type_errors RFC resolved one of the
big differences in argument handling between internal and userland
functions. This change allowed us to add return type information (available
through reflection) to internal functions, something that Gabriel
