Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117811
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 03:36:05 +0100
References: <CAFv4g+Ej4JbM9SzQ0iU-d8C4T+2XNo=8jnJ1uwfQ=skZZXx9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFv4g+Ej4JbM9SzQ0iU-d8C4T+2XNo=8jnJ1uwfQ=skZZXx9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B63A776-11B9-49BF-AE0A-FCF7F4E738F2@craigfrancis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: NULL Coercion Consistency
From: craig@craigfrancis.co.uk (Craig Francis)

On 8 Apr 2022, at 18:34, Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk> wrote:
> I've written a new draft RFC to address the NULL coercion problems:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/null_coercion_consistency



I give up.



I'm clearly not clever enough to understand what the benefits are for =
breaking NULL coercion... considering NULL has been coerced for internal =
functions since forever, and continues to work in other contexts.

If anyone wants to work on a solution to the problem, feel free to =
either edit my RFC, or create your own RFC.

I believe my RFC documents every position put forward, and includes all =
of details I think are relevant.

I fear a vote now will only result in rejection; and once people put =
their names down for a certain position, they will never change their =
mind.

That said, if someone did continue, and got their RFC accepted, I should =
be able to organise some funding for the implementation.

For some background, I paid for the `is_literal()` implementation before =
that RFC vote, as that patch is useful irrespective of the result (it's =
being used in a few projects now, and works incredibly well; thanks =
again to Joe Watkins for writing, and M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis for =
testing). In this case, two of my clients are considering the cost of =
modifying their code (by adding a load of `?? ''` everywhere), and they =
would rather avoid that (time consuming, and makes their code more =
complicated). I suggested putting aside a budget to either do that =
modification, or fund the implementation if my RFC was to pass. I'm not =
sure how big or complicated the task would be, but I noted the R11 =
suggested day rate of $500 (~=C2=A3390), and the implementation could =
take a few weeks.

If anyone does want to email me about this, I won't respond until at =
least June 6th.

Craig