In my experience, things that have different roles or behavior should
be differently named.
I have seen a lot of functions with dynamic return types based on a
mode set in the parameter (e.g. the return type could be string,
string[] or string[][] depending on whether some parameter is NULL or
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019, 19:02 Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:29 PM Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
>
> > >> I knew it worked, but I always considered this to basically be
> > >> the PHP equivalent of undefined behavior in C. And I don't think
> anyone
> >
> > It's not. It's very well
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:29 PM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> >> I knew it worked, but I always considered this to basically be
> >> the PHP equivalent of undefined behavior in C. And I don't think anyone
>
> It's not. It's very well defined behavior, that is not going to break -
> unless it is
Am 02.09.2019 um 17:01 schrieb Dan Ackroyd :
> Also(, without checking to see if it's feasible,) to me a less
> surprising approach would be to allow static and instance methods to
> be declared separately with the same method name.
>
> class Foo {
>static function loadXml() {
>echo
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 15:03, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
> Please don't shoot this down just because you are not the target audience of
> such a feature
That is always good advice.
When you draft the RFC, I strongly recommend coming up with a line of
reasoning of why creating static versions
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:03 PM Christian Schneider
wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> While some people are trying to make PHP a stricter language I'm also
> interested in making it a more flexible language by allowing to opt-in to
> advanced features for people who want it.
> Please don't shoot this
Hi internals,
While some people are trying to make PHP a stricter language I'm also
interested in making it a more flexible language by allowing to opt-in to
advanced features for people who want it.
Please don't shoot this down just because you are not the target audience of
such a feature
