Hi Niklas,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> Hey,
>
> "Will no longer produce any output." in the BC example is wrong, it
> will produce a notice due to an undefined index then.
>
>
That's right. I've updated the RFC to make that section more clear.
Including that the examp
Hey,
"Will no longer produce any output." in the BC example is wrong, it
will produce a notice due to an undefined index then.
> NOTE: If accepted, during the deprecation phase the following E_DEPRECATED
> notice would be emitted in cases where the behavior will change:
I guess that means also
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I want to bring up this RFC once again given that now seems to be the
> right timing for it. I have previously canceled the vote when I initially
> proposed this to land on 7.2 which was seen as too big of a BC for a mino
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> > Given that I got no more feedback on this, I'm ready to move it to
> voting.
> > However, before doing so, I would like to hear some feedback from 7.2 RMs
> > about the timing. I thin
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> Given that I got no more feedback on this, I'm ready to move it to voting.
> However, before doing so, I would like to hear some feedback from 7.2 RMs
> about the timing. I think the impact in real applications would be pretty
> low but ther
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have previously discussed this topic here and I have now created an RFC.
> The main goal of the RFC is to eliminate the inconsistency in arrays when
> negative numeric keys are used explicitly and the following implicit keys
