Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
In-Reply-To: <CAFPFaMLAnCqhPFZHQXnABbw=aXXj53DwtaDOf=+zQ4jN1Z+OmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:10:25 +0000
Cc: mark@demon-angel.eu,
 internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <321B3A37-AF47-410D-9D10-096F02C635A8@craigfrancis.co.uk>
References: <CAFPFaMLtOAkRzTsqfdhvkZZ17JpUBg_WSQBpgVU6+xg-mLt2zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5FC8DBAF-8D78-4E94-A3B0-3BDED3A3E53C@craigfrancis.co.uk>
 <789af205-4582-66a9-694a-10e18b8b9f56@demon-angel.eu>
 <CAFPFaMLAnCqhPFZHQXnABbw=aXXj53DwtaDOf=+zQ4jN1Z+OmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "G. P. B." <george.banyard@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Path to Saner Increment/Decrement operators
From: craig@craigfrancis.co.uk (Craig Francis)

On 18 Jan 2023, at 12:22, G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I appreciate being shown concrete cases about the useful ness of this =
operation.
> The reason I didn't go with adding support for decrementing =
alphanumeric
> strings is that it was unanimously rejected.
> However, if Rowan's suggestion of adding
> string_increment()/string_decrement() with more rigorous behaviour =
(that we
> can flesh out together) would be part of this proposal, would you be =
more
> inclined to accept deprecating ++ from performing this feature?


Hi George,

I don't have a vote at the moment (I think I need one more RFC to =
pass)... but you might be able to convince me, I just like to know that =
breakages are really worth it, because my biggest issue is trying to get =
developers to upgrade their PHP installs (a lot are still on 7.4).

I agree that some of the incrementing behaviour can be a bit weird, and =
I would be happy to see those be deprecated/removed; but I worry that =
the A, B, ..., Z, AA, AB, etc is something that works well today, and is =
likely to be tricky to find/replace with a new function in all existing =
code.

At the moment I'd prefer Option 2 or 3, with the focus being on "tiding =
up the behaviour of the alphanumeric string to make it stricter and less =
error-prone."

Craig