Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117510
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFv4g+Ej4JbM9SzQ0iU-d8C4T+2XNo=8jnJ1uwfQ=skZZXx9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B38CB916-9804-40D3-88E9-500C2908432C@dafert.at> <CAFv4g+F0LPhzBaHntiAidjHDyPLzFj=X=rnDqfkKGUenaVKWoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFv4g+GrfgQcBgYDqJ+Jk595z=-V5ad=Ad+_Mxgk5-r4keAbww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFv4g+GrfgQcBgYDqJ+Jk595z=-V5ad=Ad+_Mxgk5-r4keAbww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:05:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5V6ghUKm8CWGsjtG6FCL+sROT3PFhOCKEBiiBi-e2dQvaMng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk>
Cc: Mel Dafert <mel@dafert.at>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c3bce05dc5fc476"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] NULL Coercion Consistency
From: guilliam.xavier@gmail.com (Guilliam Xavier)

--0000000000000c3bce05dc5fc476
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency

Thanks for the draft.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:30 AM Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 19:07, Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 18:54, Mel Dafert <mel@dafert.at> wrote:
> >
> >> In particular, does this propose changing user-defined functions under
> >> strict_types=0 to accept null for scalar types?
> >>
> >
> > With user defined functions, I think it's up for debate (still a draft),
> > but I think those NULL's should be coerced to the specified type (as
> > documented), where I don't think PHP should be doing type checking under
> > strict_types=0.
> >
>
>
> I've updated the RFC to note that user-defined functions don't cause a
> backwards compatibility issue; but I have added an example to highlight
> the coercion inconstancy:
>

You've updated the **Documentation** section (also: did you mean
"inconsistency" rather than "inconstancy"?) but still not the **Proposal**
(BTW all those sections between "Introduction" and "Proposal" would
probably better be *sub*-sections of a section named "Problem" or "Current
State" or something).

And for the question: (currently) the RFC is named "NULL Coercion
*Consistency*" and the Proposal says "Must keep the spirit of the original
RFC, and *keep user-defined and internal functions consistent*.", which (to
me) implies *not only* reverting the 8.1 deprecation on internal functions
*but also* "changing user-defined functions under strict_types=0 to
[coerce] null for scalar type[ declaration]s" indeed.
In any case, that should be written clear in the RFC (either in "Proposal"
or "Open Issues").

Regards,

-- 
Guilliam Xavier

--0000000000000c3bce05dc5fc476--