Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104594 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6360 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2019 09:52:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vie01a-dmta-pe07-2.mx.upcmail.net) (84.116.36.18) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2019 09:52:26 -0000 Received: from [172.31.216.235] (helo=vie01a-pemc-psmtp-pe12.mail.upcmail.net) by vie01a-dmta-pe07.mx.upcmail.net with esmtp (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from ) id 1h1QEP-00051Z-0v for internals@lists.php.net; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:40:45 +0100 Received: from mail02.home ([213.47.8.56]) by vie01a-pemc-psmtp-pe12.mail.upcmail.net with ESMTP id 1QDRhCcTMxLwq1QDRh0d19; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:39:45 +0100 X-Env-Mailfrom: markus@fischer.name X-Env-Rcptto: internals@lists.php.net X-SourceIP: 213.47.8.56 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=WaxylHpX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UsP8JIz990cEySE/ILGzbQ==:117 a=UsP8JIz990cEySE/ILGzbQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=NTGMnVQrEZIA:10 a=2EALvoLjsrEA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=67BIL_jfAAAA:8 a=4zRlIslyhqdEAfIe2foA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Received: from mail02.home ([192.168.1.14] helo=the-matrix-has-you.local) by mail02.home with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1h1QDQ-0001oz-8x for internals@lists.php.net; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 07:39:44 +0100 To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <40683e93-f8e9-5a8c-9646-31c73c99396f@fischer.name> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:39:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "scanner01.home", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hello, On 06.03.19 01:16, Andrea Faulds wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/trailing_whitespace_numerics > > I expect this should be an uncontroversial proposal, but maybe I'm > jinxing it there. I hope you all like it. :) > > Thanks to Nikita for reminding me it existed and thus motivating me to > pick it up again. Also thanks to Nikita for suggesting a potential > follow-up RFC, and also making the “Saner string to number comparisons” > RFC, both providing additional impetus for me to finally clean this up > and put it to discussion. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: php.net] X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNf4Klpi3gKPbYxvvJlWTjRnfb/CLkNh/dMvELk2x9ZY1qIA276PuxoJcenkNEmuKAoXQWkksfD+zhg80MQooHkH7rej/7YIuOv3ZNiDZGJxdzdn4Tmd CvvTGDuTFj8ogJtuLm1/oH5tue6wBIiPmVedHHkXiXKkKvu37JH6bH7T Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Permit trailing whitespace in numeric strings From: markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer) Hello, On 06.03.19 01:16, Andrea Faulds wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/trailing_whitespace_numerics > > I expect this should be an uncontroversial proposal, but maybe I'm > jinxing it there. I hope you all like it. :) > > Thanks to Nikita for reminding me it existed and thus motivating me to > pick it up again. Also thanks to Nikita for suggesting a potential > follow-up RFC, and also making the “Saner string to number comparisons” > RFC, both providing additional impetus for me to finally clean this up > and put it to discussion. Hmm, my first reaction would be the opposite. For all the changes which happened during the years, PHP got stricter; this would make it more lax. I know this is totally not the goal of the RFC, by my feeling is if we would change something (ignoring BC break for a sec) that it would be to actually _remove_ support for leading whitespace ?‍♀️ - Markus