Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117514
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> <CAC5V6ghUKm8CWGsjtG6FCL+sROT3PFhOCKEBiiBi-e2dQvaMng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC5V6ghUKm8CWGsjtG6FCL+sROT3PFhOCKEBiiBi-e2dQvaMng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:11:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFv4g+E1V6NVm7m+jU_6nFrNTL+RmpUDGeFwV3esb_PmeP-kXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Dafert <mel@dafert.at>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013ad2005dc625d1e"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] NULL Coercion Consistency
From: craig@craigfrancis.co.uk (Craig Francis)

--00000000000013ad2005dc625d1e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 13:05, Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency
>
> 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").
>


Thank you Guilliam, I've applied all of your suggestions (with a slight
tweak to use `strict_types=1`, just because I find it easier to read).

While I am open to for user-defined functions to keep the type check for
NULL when not in `strict_types=1`, it does feel like a bug, and I think it
would be better to be consistent (happy to discuss on or off list).

Craig

--00000000000013ad2005dc625d1e--