[PHP-DEV] Re: RFC karma request

On 22.05.2022 at 20:05, Aaron Junker wrote: > I would like to request karma to create a RFC for a global php.net login > system. The RFC will show up different scenarios and aspects, on which you > will be able to vote on, so that it gets easier to get an overview what the > PHP developer want.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Removal of ${} string interpolation in PHP 9

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:46 AM Mark Randall wrote: > > On 20/05/2022 10:05, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > > So unless there are concerns I will amend that in the RFC. > > Erroring it out makes sense to me. > > As we don't include any target version specification in PHP files, the > safest bet it so prev

[PHP-DEV] Re: RFC karma request

> > I would like to request karma to create a RFC for a global php.net login > > system. The RFC will show up different scenarios and aspects, on which you > > will be able to vote on, so that it gets easier to get an overview what the > > PHP developer want. > > > > Wiki username: aaron-junker

[PHP-DEV] Re: RFC karma request

On 23.05.2022 at 15:30, Aaron Junker wrote: >>> I would like to request karma to create a RFC for a global php.net login >>> system. The RFC will show up different scenarios and aspects, on which you >>> will be able to vote on, so that it gets easier to get an overview what the >>> PHP develop

[PHP-DEV] [RFC] Body-less methods

Hello there. I would intend a proposal about body-less methods. You can read RFC draft here: https://github.com/php/php-src/issues/8420 The similar topic about body-less constructors was discussed a year ago (https://externals.io/message/114324). There wasn't consensus in the discussion and RFC ha

[PHP-DEV] [8.2] Feature Freeze July 19th

Hi, all! While we haven't yet kicked off the 8.2 release cycle, Alpha 1 is fast approaching (June 9th), and Feature Freeze is less than 2 months away (July 19th). All new features and RFCs need to be discussed with voting polls closed on or before July 19th, for inclusion in PHP 8.2. So, g

[PHP-DEV] Re: NULL Coercion Consistency

On 8 Apr 2022, at 18:34, Craig Francis wrote: > I've written a new draft RFC to address the NULL coercion problems: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency > For those against my RFC, can you take a quick look at this patch for

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

On 16-5-2022 17:06, Andreas Leathley wrote: Hello Internals, After the first discussion about this topic (https://externals.io/message/117608) I have created a preliminary implementation and an RFC for making implicit boolean type coercions more strict: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/stricter_implici

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

On 23 May 2022, at 19:58, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote: > I also fear that for code bases which do not (yet) use scalar type > declarations, this will be one more argument not to introduce scalar type > declarations (while they should). > > I'd say that for this RFC to be acceptable it would

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

On 23.05.22 20:58, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote: This RFC worries me as, in my opinion, it makes PHP's behaviour more surprising and inconsistent, not less. It also raises the cognitive complexity for developers by yet another level. 1. It introduces a new interpretation of boolean type coerc

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 16:06, Andreas Leathley wrote: > Hello Internals, > > After the first discussion about this topic > (https://externals.io/message/117608) I have created a preliminary > implementation and an RFC for making implicit boolean type coercions > more strict: > > https://wiki.php.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

On 23.05.22 22:54, G. P. B. wrote: I don't like this RFC as it introduces special coercion semantics for boolean *only* in a function (+ typed properties (well at least I hope it impacts typed properties)) context. The obvious other context is the logical one with conditional statements and/or b