2016-09-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de>: > On 25.09.2016 at 11:29, Leigh wrote: > > > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 06:29 Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Also this behavior is clearly documented: > >> > >> http://th1.php.net/manual/en/function.get-class.php > >> > >> "If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is > >> returned." > >> > >> I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean is > this > >> behavior and I recommend the (future) RMs to veto this change. > > > > This is ambiguous at best. > > > > "Omitted" and "Not omitted but set to null" are different things. > > However, the changelog entry for 5.3.0 states: > > | NULL became the default value for object, so passing NULL to object > | now has the same result as not passing any value. > > And that's what I would expect when reading the function signature; > after all, NULL is the default value of $object.
I think what matters is the documentation of the return value, not the changelog. Returns the name of the class of which object is an instance. Returns FALSE > if object is not an object. > If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is > returned. It clearly says "omitted", that's passing nothing at all. Passing `null` doesn't omit an argument, it passes `null`. I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean is this I guess most code that might pass null is probably broken, do you have a use case where the current behavior even makes sense? Regards, Niklas
