The impact analysis on userland code seems to be missing for some of the
> proposals, most notably for the proposals which I expect will have the
> highest impact. I'd like to ask for an impact analysis to be added to
> each of these:
> * array_keys()
> * ReflectionProperty::setValue()

These are intentionally left out due to different reasons:

* Even though the 1 parameter version of array_keys() is used a lot, its 2+
parameter signature is much less known.
Personally, I've never used it. Of course, this doesn't mean no one uses
it, but I don't think this deprecation will really
matter in practice, so I didn't care to write a script for this (the rest
of the deprecations were easy to analyze via regexes).

* ReflectionProperty::setValue() would be a lot of work to analyze since
it's very difficult to track whether the
setValue() method is called on a ReflectionProperty instance. Not to
mention the fact that the deprecation only affects
function invocations where either a single parameter is provided or static
properties where the first parameter is not null
or an object instance. Since the suggested alternative is basically
available since forever, I think it's OK not to do
an exhaustive analysis in this case.

> For the `get*_class()` deprecation, I wonder if an additional impact
> analysis is needed for packages which may not have removed usages of
> `get_class( null )`, which would now be double-impacted (and not caught
> by the current analysis).

I'm not sure I can follow you, but get_class(null) is a TypeError since 8.0
(and have been warning since 7.2). If a package
didn't feel the need to migrate its get_class() usages then it is likely a
dead project. And if someone tries to upgrade their
(proprietary) code from PHP 7.1 to PHP 8.3 directly then they will notice
the exception first and also - if they followed the upgrading
notes carelly - will learn the relevant suggestions regarding the
deprecation. But realistically speaking, these projects will most probably
be bound by lots of other more severe issues, so I don't think the above is
a viable upgrade path...


Reply via email to