On Tue, Feb 4, 2020, 14:50 Aimeos | Norbert Sendetzky <norb...@aimeos.com> wrote:
> Am 04.02.20 um 14:43 schrieb Marco Pivetta: > >> I think we can't classify it as BC break, because no existing code > >> implements __toArray at the moment, and hence it will not fail when this > >> feature is introduced and code gets upgraded to newer versions. > > > > It is a BC break because it changes the semantic of `(array) $object`: > the > > operation is no longer stable between two versions of the language. > > It wouldn't be a BC breaking change if `(array) $object` works like > before when __toArray() isn't implemented by an object. As nobody should > have implemented __toArray() because it's a reserved name for magic > methods, we should be fine. > The operation in question, when seen by its signature, is: (array) :: object FieldTypes -> Map String FieldTypes The proposed RFC changes this to (pardon the weird union type: my type-fu is not that advanced): (array) :: (FieldTypes|IO ToArrayTypes a) => object a -> Map String a This changes the return type of a very much pure function (even makes it non-pure: fun), and is a very, very, very clear BC break. >
