Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108901 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67568 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2020 21:10:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2020 21:10:52 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268881804D0 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 12:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 12:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id n8so3686206wmc.4 for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 12:31:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=bYpMnH52soWNBJceraiyHIZKVVujNhlCeYb7mwXyQuo=; b=NyJZx+xdG122rvf4oL3+ZVkTp0VpReQKEgSSu7cFKnU6tSUquaxOcO915BCnxqU8Fy EWPqg0Yp5RDw4ZEqpbhF1lkMbaPXjbJBv/pEIYoGnkp7ELHQAMP3yXjcj37lU4qRY4iZ D/Kgt6jmyThCl7TtPhEBBl4v0elHNHv8JjmrWgVshxsS6bcgsBMiUIbElF2dwo24ZiqQ IzRiAaaYWJ9OKuwr710nCch7rT4pMUVK3ojpNsWwDpK89HrECm+MgiiAEM7DPIowI+i/ o6IciZ0qi+eR+Be6Ps6U0m6opFdL5W/LIGpoXaVQVwMcwRC5w3yGwEae4xX4QHQCZkyk Blcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=bYpMnH52soWNBJceraiyHIZKVVujNhlCeYb7mwXyQuo=; b=pXaNYrXccP0Oe3GBBmUH9emxIsoRCwHHzumXlQMbiujBV8kPAcKVXX7MXwOa9mRHGe 8SqMFMiIj1d7L8TGlNICBWvFh5Xk9hVRUiWyi3j0iBK8CI3H+usliQsjQVomKhiQcMtE 2KKL5ufANDMDEHq+o3Xvq8AYKxXmnfX/IxzJoFxfr1zPa9H16g+S2eOmuVcG+0tPeDeu aHewug5V6TQmR8e8Wh86NriRA0ysxDH+i+YV+Aa/YjoVosia7CtuwFT/psJXC2oBRVFM nRtTCdypwfF522zWRZXk9w39SY3tm6UVDmUhvvhHyt89w5dtcBN7gglgWujghTYIqXvS +tLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ27eBfiB9Xm7oPbp8hPfd3ehrRFJS05j+dT98Ld+V+mRzGGPG+Y ua7aOnBroXNDIDL0Gbg7k6AWzi6R X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsFU5izEYsnnGwwfPbZSUpTAHGkFmdG1VBV2hf6KqBap1dXh1XrboQ4foPpDb1VKlykC0LeNA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:e341:: with SMTP id a62mr3974418wmh.121.1583695875177; Sun, 08 Mar 2020 12:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v8sm56306241wrw.2.2020.03.08.12.31.14 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Mar 2020 12:31:14 -0700 (PDT) To: PHP Internals References: <3f615d82-a84b-697b-5c02-8d915270f92c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f7d2c72-376a-c9f4-0e65-f6374ab0abfa@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:31:14 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3f615d82-a84b-697b-5c02-8d915270f92c@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [RFC] Increment/Decrement Fixes From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 01/03/2020 21:23, Rowan Tommins wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/increment_decrement_fixes Hi all, I have just posted a substantially rewritten version of the above RFC. * The proposal to change boolean behaviour has been dropped. * More justification has been included for treating nulls differently. * The suggestion of raising errors just for the currently broken operators has been explicitly addressed. I would urge anyone who reacted instinctively to the original proposal to read this version, and engage with the reasoning it presents, even if they disagree with my conclusions. Thanks, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]