On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 13:05, Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xav...@gmail.com>

> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency
> You've updated the **Documentation** section (also: did you mean
> "inconsistency" rather than "inconstancy"?) but still not the **Proposal**
> (BTW all those sections between "Introduction" and "Proposal" would
> probably better be *sub*-sections of a section named "Problem" or "Current
> State" or something).
> And for the question: (currently) the RFC is named "NULL Coercion
> *Consistency*" and the Proposal says "Must keep the spirit of the original
> RFC, and *keep user-defined and internal functions consistent*.", which (to
> me) implies *not only* reverting the 8.1 deprecation on internal functions
> *but also* "changing user-defined functions under strict_types=0 to
> [coerce] null for scalar type[ declaration]s" indeed.
> In any case, that should be written clear in the RFC (either in "Proposal"
> or "Open Issues").

Thank you Guilliam, I've applied all of your suggestions (with a slight
tweak to use `strict_types=1`, just because I find it easier to read).

While I am open to for user-defined functions to keep the type check for
NULL when not in `strict_types=1`, it does feel like a bug, and I think it
would be better to be consistent (happy to discuss on or off list).


Reply via email to