Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117781
Message-ID: <528cd634-139d-b7da-a3c7-9aaa64e03d08@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:09:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <eb2bef11-4027-8555-93e3-89c2cc4f5a18@gmx.net>
 <628BD938.1010409@adviesenzo.nl>
In-Reply-To: <628BD938.1010409@adviesenzo.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] Stricter implicit boolean coercions
From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley)

On 23.05.22 20:58, Juliette Reinders Folmer wrote:
> All in all, I largely agree with the flaws in this proposal as
> previously pointed out by Christian Schneider in the preliminary
> discussion. And I don't see those concerns addressed in the RFC (other
> than making it more explicit what the actual intended change is).

I amended the RFC and tried to address and include all of your points,
as well as made it clearer what the intention of the RFC is. Adding the
behavior of the filter extension was a sensible addition, I didn't even
think of its special behavior before you mentioned it, and going into
more detail about the other boolean coercions in PHP was also something
that needed a more explicit section in the RFC, as it has been brought
up by different people in different contexts already and I seem to have
prematurely dismissed its importance so far.

If you still think other concerns are not addressed I would be happy to
know about them.