Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120513
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xXtCVHaxwzmAW_eBxp_D6p7kww9svND=3AEeC9X6--YXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5798AD17-3FA6-48E5-83E9-B5773BE94598@gmail.com> <CAH5C8xUeMM-vKCKOP9C27zF=OK4pZdY3RGYTWUW7dWA23pS02g@mail.gmail.com>
 <71F586BF-E5AD-4FD2-B680-6E0EDCB4733D@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <71F586BF-E5AD-4FD2-B680-6E0EDCB4733D@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:21:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xXy=qq14PejKYSwGvfcrt28RJXw9XGOwMTwnK_LVwwUkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000030201405fd25705d"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Deprecate functions with overloaded signatures
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--00000000000030201405fd25705d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Claude,

The very risk is that the programmer must be aware that the return
> convention has changed. Recall that not everyone run static analysers,
> especially for such a trivial migration, and that not every code is
> statically analysable (e.g.. `$foo->$bar()`).
>

I hope that I don't sound elitist, but codebases not using static
analysis... are kind of hopeless... That is, in my opinion, there's no
other option
to run a larger PHP project successfully than to either use static analysis
or to have programmers who don't commit any mistakes. For the rest
of the less valuable projects, the cost of messing up with the return value
check is not much.

What is the purpose of changing the return convention of IntlCalendar
> methods, and is it worth?
>

The purpose is to have the "correct" return type. Is it worth it? Well, it
depends... For me, what's important is that PHP becomes a more and
more predictable and accessible language, and I care less about minimizing
backward compatibility breaks.

The introduction of the "true" type was useful, since we now have more
correct type information, but adding new functions with this return type
would be unfortunate, as many people (especially the ones coming from other
languages) would be puzzled about the meaning of
the "true" type more than if the return type was "void". I'm pretty sure
that George - the author of the true type - agrees that the main purpose
of this type is to eliminate its declarations from internal functions and
methods.

Regards,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--00000000000030201405fd25705d--