Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118021
Message-ID: <69ee260d-cade-943f-1ec9-98296cd29b06@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 18:13:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <28886d77-2c48-5196-d35b-b15419c3bc13@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <28886d77-2c48-5196-d35b-b15419c3bc13@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Stricter implicit boolean coercions
From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley)

The vote has been closed, the RFC has been declined with 14 to 3 votes.

It would have been interesting to get some more feedback on why people
voted No - some took part in the discussion, but most didn't. My
assumption is that most didn't find this important enough, especially if
strict types is not affected. While I think the RFC would have helped
identify obvious bugs (and I find the current behavior of PHP with
boolean coercions less than ideal), I can see an argument for voters to
not see it as something important enough to change the language, as the
problems this RFC would have highlighted can be avoided altogether.

If anybody still wants to give some insight on these reasons or a way to
improve boolean coercions in another way, I would be happy to hear it.
Otherwise thanks to everybody who took part in the discussion, it was an
interesting experience.