Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117732 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12412 invoked from network); 16 May 2022 13:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 May 2022 13:26:00 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0C218004E for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 08:06:15 -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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS8560 212.227.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 ; Mon, 16 May 2022 08:06:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1652713573; bh=OPtuWaQ17yDQGgdib7FImkyR9DyoOBZj5YFYnxDJuNY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:To:From:Subject; b=a/0uoQG/oZ4XBhFg3LyS8kLOOZ6FTAUMT6HnM+zww3DRPsMNzx0OzeKn5uQgkLQci QdzWqLDwAe3/HlLcunEXs0nvSTDYFX8N42D2G+QLv+yXk5Gii33oC5vtWP7cbPNVNu XjMB7AIm5FkmVKHCxyqB854p4pdwOOvtp2B+Tv84= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.120] ([24.134.51.41]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MysRk-1ncxKp2m0Y-00vtWr for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 17:06:13 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------hehIzf9KimS8mwXIc9ZuJZL8" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 17:06:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:tMCXRIfM3HqNJ3qkE6rUOE/fq1dGnrdawvoTcGLCIMwvZCJKnsS jY0AwjDRtNe2qPT4QE7ioPT8BtgNxs5uP/S27Aa47yTt4S3IZIDV2HOHidbc1EbVk1UFrae Il+2jlX6HuRuJ6eBao2mAXHvzz9lbLCGlqyOkNxJNz7Hfx49IOtCPIc3v8Ar7ej+AeLOF17 HCJpIH5CyRWWE/556Z8Jg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:mHyeVAdVLoY=:/HRDE1gb5MXYNjYNM50ICd KyI6DdpMt1cqeSj8B3/25z54eOxPkrXvYyhTnQfZ89XG2HtgUv7398uqI1nVWLbKbhSbOY6MB oSnVzMHYR7RKhZS2VmgAnUv83+u40ursV17bulCO++QN9aP8meFxyRNG4KcQno+A7bqMerwEJ +gVgLqPrRomKObNoiY7AfGSYyrmXmDnanx43c0O7Kjxq8Y5bDsZ4u8hYqKQ6ggYe6uPOSt1rs jndeXV9TycYAe4EYv3CkE27U38G9SaCr9UvlgkQDbDmqUmO5dOTXTd5JNqPvpPChsNvH/ioUn UNXu3a+1KZe5bj+aoZI98iXuxwI4Wlrt33dDerAbbCbVVAE4KJ/v5iQZJlqUtniKk0LY7AW/e wPJWV8IWC7u6qDOBWosJgQLT9Zz945EfCVKX4wgqo2shD+h6wNpr+Ytn4Cbmb+glhDIkI2LQV IVbHqcM/A5r5l4Zmla1UBD2oMA9Fk8xH0IQAfZjqvFMlTlYuXcIF9jxre2BTAvMPrK2Zggyrg UjylLyWAj1lZZ5CqAKdtcPx7aQh4jLIutJlSC8ugsKV0+88AWBC82P6Yd4mDxXzt87gisqeDw m2o4UXDMI0LwHfWOVBOum3Rs8XipE3UTMnONtjqhGWrtM92dPOQVg6gw9TN1sDqk3AJMPHWML qfG65Uct1xXStPbhupa9HNLKSoQYd80RtPzdroqaAbqjvts6/2k7wJ9rxO+x3EYT0ODL263Sn cNyRP8zzTPT3khQ2JW1Lcrsl2i1n0n3MLjUk+yqJ2ia5o/bsGYPA4AvoI0RScQ+cm/s9sl+fc 6g9fIqdZ+RzVYXiS6rqeIihQkuuvfmziGzZ1P9cJm7f0kSRX09wBGUTl/bUFPs3nywaLWJaWu ePwqWekz1qazIDB5blVhxFKgHtUXIBSL4vwYxY94nf0fyqYgY03t0QSdmPe7r1gYOqy070m6c 1Hm4sNL84ffBotpjZTsX68WHb+Ia3CWbN4qttyvy6WV4Iicqeed4eB0MhMxXekhntyQ/35p0U edzm8YgKorxWNTSVJQQat0jJutokICcE8VZokQWaW2AORfhpGkS93TtlnP5lopjx3GPFZvsmz ZUZV7sOpduVflw+VkEzb6T1doweRLaB5xihrfoYwDNO+b3NDUrIu45ISQ== Subject: [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) --------------hehIzf9KimS8mwXIc9ZuJZL8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Internals, After the first discussion about this topic (https://externals.io/message/117608) I have created a preliminary implementation and an RFC for making implicit boolean type coercions more strict: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/stricter_implicit_boolean_coercions With this email I'm starting the two week discussion period. I welcome any feedback on it and hope to further iron out the implementation if needed. I mainly chose the route of introducing a deprecation notice because it is in line with other RFCs that have similar goals (like the Deprecate implicit non-integer-compatible float to int conversions RFC), and it is fairly non-intrusive. Best regards, Andreas --------------hehIzf9KimS8mwXIc9ZuJZL8--