Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117737 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24734 invoked from network); 16 May 2022 15:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 May 2022 15:32:10 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE98180545 for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 10:12:27 -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=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, 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 [212.227.15.18]) (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 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1652721145; bh=7DH5iJornCLwZvyYzGGjstkCXAguzHoCJriGv6bemtk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=DZlaMd4UmnAeOIFJRun7vIipF35OdB2E4mxngP0z+bvGtd+E/e2DD0M5mKMN4EJF7 S970CZWB5kza32ku8dOB1nu5xCxKaOVg9KP7Af/WcJz0oGrfi7R1NNOTTjNHm6IHw3 CkfTnDyvuwu6NM1gBp6y1oilkB7WwrM6N7v7mR6c= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.120] ([24.134.51.41]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MyKHm-1nghWP2zzo-00yhUq for ; Mon, 16 May 2022 19:12:25 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 19:12:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Content-Language: en-US To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:e3hSVSvnSdt7kZPc/l2Wu+oRRAI7oSgPiHsdvXUPOLckfqPu0KZ ZxVbot8cTveFoFPc6MtEQTmiIB1TcKN816FxomkXWjPM+HE+7jYAWRalnzgFns6vtIvxPTX AueZWPlPe2OPK1Kj6BgBcufrmIEpGjYP0rBs1TSNHqpVRuXVkjenltu45DnJfMk1o83BUvb I7FmStCAXcI1WnikDjCLg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:oA4CxsiC46c=:6ToyjYkJVyxMKKtXIuv6qS N7JcOG1JTumvKpaZ18j+p77Xc/sO5E0U+OB1owXlQXuIeoHG31ZViTyHrXkLWOfnEiXkN63qn vU7gniqmKoKR3SyDc9jiua2/pIBZETJppdVGHiAQcm9nlRF0Z8uhi0VCPv9VZ5mBfcqtQk7n7 D4LCYWBboygOvJ5RKS24YvypJGxnbv0ZnnEJVy3wyUGj+AUdBxTempk02Vl7OV/FeGUpsWIVd XnVl9ZIZiuE3JZAJqJwjCSV0hYQhmSabvnIWXvxrLBDXVE1LOIShXPKG8WpDYNvsbgfNtf2qs 1E30iOoVeOi0f2Ddv6kwhHfEji5bCdsYh6lVsG9iPgSSDrlixELPc6fhwOboh5f06s9AxWOFz 5GTYRamX49USpQ4VdQjQLJPyLxOgaxi+8U6LPjkeXHndpz/Ewk1vdMO0pOfZ3e2TWrB91pF+u cVvkyJ3Y1KqbJX5KPBAm2viDxdHPRXE5UhaMyVFDwDqJrirDYZ7Mndlep4z2KaCr3hTuBNqFZ Aamg1YPDigal8sjkVPOonsy4F5k8PG0SlJxKR9KSSbHzYLRoWfF08d5NpcPUQTv9bp8RB5hE7 9QjAoiz1eT16RCEmJaegTa6176dXubKwpTBD6XQJXxPpU9Zn7s+T6EJO1N+/SX5gfg1EYEtyF pobFzzbUS8RXX/DNE1HUSHiF/ZB+E7Fby9GzG3JqpifX5c9WfHUKCyNvDfHyQ4VSs08Vs18yJ llGIio5q8gZVa0zSB7ntIJSH/U2c0WPOcHiNcE+HG2BC07YKm1pbarLvZwRYvNRpqjV1UklIs aX8epxP4thoqB7eH1is+v+z+93asoN3evcag5qacdjqyk48PnW/j9aABrLK8B80BzWjS2Wf0W tM/13TYQ/pEDNyyOkkvV/a1sfBRw8SFP3OmV8YVnSqQtYv/dYxmGdxkuC67H00k2yekJ/AUjB Z3vi40RnGbpowLrWB6hTcr+0LoVW9MvHstmU/NTKc7SZ2OCBTj6JS6htzgBaV21/eKQRzUglh 3B7H3DBfzBs0kPHAgL5wAG27jJ4ZoOQcQgZZDTvWq4uIDkQeUKPNx2w9O12nDvT8SYgCBnSeM 10pgsVt/2YLTf0= Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley) On 16.05.22 18:24, Guilliam Xavier wrote: > Thanks! Am I right that it only affects *type declarations*, and the > "Unaffected PHP Functionality" section could also mention implicit > boolean evaluation in `if`, ternary conditional (?:) and logical > operators (!, &&, ||, and, or, xor)? Yes, that is correct and I just added a note about that in the RFC - thanks for the suggestion! I also added a part about how to avoid the deprecation notice, which should also make it clearer / add some context.