>
> On Feb 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM, mailto:ocram...@gmail.com)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> For once, we would have a function with a self-describing, clear name:
>
>
>
>
Seriously?That function name reminds me of COBOL programming.
>
>
>
> CTRL+S
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:33 PM Mike Schinkel wrote:
> 2. Do we really want to add a standard library function 53 characters
> long?
>
> Can we not come up with a more concise name than
> get_defined_functions_allowed_in_constant_expressions(), like maybe
> get_const_expr_funcs() or get_const_exp
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 8:34 PM, tyson andre wrote:
>
>> 1. Why again are MyClass::methodName() not considered for the non-whitelist
>> vote?
>>
>> Seems to me a developer would be more inclined to implement the expressions
>> that define the class constant's value in a method of the class than
> 1. Why again are MyClass::methodName() not considered for the non-whitelist
> vote?
>
> Seems to me a developer would be more inclined to implement the expressions
> that define the class constant's value in a method of the class than in an
> external function.
My reasons for doing this wer
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 4:02 PM, tyson andre wrote:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/calls_in_constant_expressions has been updated and
> moved to
> "Under Discussion".
>
> This proposes allowing function calls in constant declarations, static
> property defaults,
> static variables, and parameter de
