On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 01:12, Aran Reeks wrote:
> ... Too much code depends on an expected type of stdClass
> presently which would likely make future upgrades more difficult for no
> functional gain, beyond some added clarify.
What if we had the DynamicObject as a subclass of stdClass?
It
Hello,
One question I have (as I always do) regarding nullable intersection types,
(which is a forbidden topic and I know I shouldn't bring it up).
I'd love to know how `Consistency` plays a role in new RFCs.
Are we striving for consistency?
Is it a value here?
Or simply it is a side effect?
We
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 17:59, Nikita Popov wrote:
> I'd like to address a common footgun when using foreach by reference:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/foreach_unwrap_ref
>
Hello,
I had a question regarding this.
Wouldn't it be possible to limit ```$value```'s scope to only foreach's
block then
Hello,
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 19:09, Ralph Schindler
wrote:
>
> This proposes a method for a publisher/framework/producer (the caller of
> the callback) to document all the parameters that are available as named
> parameters, and subscribers/consumers (creator of the callback) could
> subscribe
Hello,
What about `is_vulnerable`? Its behaviour would be the inverse of
is_literal.
I mean we don't have to avoid the other side of the coin.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 22:41, Craig Francis
wrote:
> Hi Internals,
>
> As the name `is_trusted()` seems to be causing contention, I think more
> than
Out of curiosity,
Couldn't PHP raise an error when there is an uninitialized state left
unhandled after calling the constructor?
It might make the developer think of either providing a default value or
initializing it in the constructor.
Hence no uninitialized state.
On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 10:14, Hamza Ahmad
wrote:
> Thus, array() or [] will return scaler array object,
>
Hello,
This doesn't seem trivial to me.
I mean, should array object be passed by value or by reference?
Arrays are passed by value by default so far, and objects are be-ref
internally.
If
On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 09:03, Hossein Baghayi
wrote:
> Providing ? as a means of placeholder for some arguments and ignoring the
> rest could complicate the readability in my opinion.
> Maybe we should move (?) out of the arguments list as a means of creating
> a partial.
>
&g
> Requiring additional trailing argument placeholders or adding an
> additional token `...?` unnecessarily complicates things, burdens the
> user, and only serves to further promote misunderstanding.
>
> Providing ? as a means of placeholder for some arguments and ignoring the
rest could
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:59, Larry Garfield wrote:
> 1) Please don't top-post.
>
> 2) The reason is that the old way doesn't provide any way to populate them
> on construction. The pattern of "assign the arg to the prop in the
> constructor" is stupendously common, and promotion makes it
If constructor is supposed to be empty then why are we even bothering with
construction promoting style? Why aren't we sticking to the old way of
defining properties?
Are there any advantages to using construction promoting style?
I mean sure we could have this:
class Foo {
public function
11 matches
Mail list logo
