On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:15 AM Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> So that gives me two (2) thoughts
>
> 1.) First is Geometry would be another area for PHP to consider adding
> classes.
>
> 2.) Then I thought: What if PHP had the ability to explicitly define
> *value* objects? I know this has been
> On Aug 9, 2021, at 8:40 PM, Jordan LeDoux wrote:
> That is in part of why I asked for use-case examples, to see if there really
> were a lot of use-cases where operator overloading makes sense. You only
> provided two categories; Math and the already existing DateInterval.
>
> This
Hello
The following valid <= PHP 8.0 code that intends to make the $line property
public is a fatal error in 8.1
class FooException extends Exception {
public $line;
}
However, the fixed code for 8.1:
class FooException extends Exception {
public int $line;
}
Is a fatal error in <=
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, at 1:51 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> 2.) Then I thought: What if PHP had the ability to explicitly define
> *value* objects? I know this has been something Larry Garfield has
> mentioned[1] in the past.
>
> What if we had a new type of class that is to be used only for
On 10/08/2021 13:39, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
I will wait if I don't have the choice, but as many others reported, the
experience with 7.0 missing nullability was a pain.
Apologies if you already did and I've forgotten, but could you please
expand on what "pain" you are referring to here?
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 08:29, Nicolas Grekas
> wrote:
> > Nullability is a special beast in PHP. We have a range of operators
> > dedicated to it. That's also why I think it deserves special care, and
> why
> > I think it's important to have this discussion before 8.1 is out.
>
> Why does this
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 8:46 PM Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Either way if PHP can identify a value object then it could limit operator
> overloads to just classes that are value objects by whatever approach PHP
> chooses to distinguish.
>
>
> -Mike
> [*] Ironically I mentioned you because I thought
> On Aug 10, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Point of order: I do not support a dedicated value-object/data-object
> construct, and have said so explicitly. I support targeted tools that make
> using objects in that fashion cleaner and more robust. (readonly, asymmetric
>
