Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120687 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6185 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2023 23:53:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2023 23:53:08 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AB31804D0 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com (mail-oi1-f178.google.com [209.85.167.178]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3a1e6022b93so865055b6e.1 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:53:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1687823586; x=1690415586; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WjMhXSYTLZtMxWUeWkfRqMPG8UapsnribPc8CmchM8Q=; b=RTj5EH6I9G5XUdiH7J02jqPIgvceY0AwrI29FJ1vL42AN1VSdj5c0oESsivqL3HAxm GrQqAEm0SOMcRkDAJXrixl0Pe4S7bhejJ2nnh3YJcFOI7KbKJ7XYx0Np8LdmA5hZTvnj MwmvOUu1/Bt7YiNprrVLDcBLDVA4nFueYU7DXR2kTo1nXYU5/GDZgVQukJHxChTgl9lH EXBUIc9Zlh+lzw+QYfymzT9Q4P5VdMvrucFvmI+8SlGLpfGfpj3ords33ae1w5IRIoK9 w4lAwI5cmmlf3BkaI6G7Q9avyQAxoW2NGEK7kvSQcptPK1q7Fc1yoiqABAffN23Hi84N MxUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687823586; x=1690415586; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WjMhXSYTLZtMxWUeWkfRqMPG8UapsnribPc8CmchM8Q=; b=LNO1l9mFlwF6i+h7G5LU9+LP5geckQqY4HRnYz3+Haasn/y/gjMB5WAIQabqW4SUYr AQD3GUIFGw4Nn4wGwoKiKle39THB1Xj+Zj22FpSksM0w2Tx43XJMShipd6+CMX7awOzb jtSFuvtvWp7CoiXQ+o96Oro345p9EBTZ3riQCwYQxxvXZnIv4Y8X9jZ8EJqpIAk6caZe fhgrV8OvExQI8GB6ZsyZzW+KUN3RaX8tX7g4LUHd7eyKYt8y1VcLJHFOmXSzQnnKkrs9 2t9FXC5xAACdAe+wb/wE5mr4D5HPIe7sX+ePkCza9ArWU0FEQilMyr9opqYu20yjgO4Y hQ4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwVNcVqJpOOYEw4f/xVQU+c7fst+22p1xD0UeKq8DEZOUUCD3rQ V+21PPLnqABAELEiIRPFRAxvOig4fCgI4e7ySUJ5gFG+hlQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6pV39NKOFG7QEzCm9CQ3DwNLD/AB78jx9JMCtU9QKcuFx/OguM6Qgi7aNHuSeyNRXvK9rKe2w1WgDLZUpwq0U= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:168e:b0:39e:d559:61fc with SMTP id bb14-20020a056808168e00b0039ed55961fcmr30237742oib.30.1687823586434; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:53:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:52:55 +0100 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005022de05ff110db9" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Path to Saner Increment/Decrement operators From: george.banyard@gmail.com ("G. P. B.") --0000000000005022de05ff110db9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 14:28, G. P. B. wrote: > Hello Internals, > > I would like to start the discussion on the Path to Saner > Increment/Decrement operators RFC: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/saner-inc-dec-operators > > The goal of this RFC is to reduce language complexity by making $v++ > behave like $v += 1 and $v-- behave like $v -= 1; > > I am expecting the contentious part of the proposal to be the deprecation > of the PERL string increment feature to achieve the aforementioned goal. > However, I believe the benefits of aligning the behaviour of the > increment/decrement operators with addition/subtraction are larger than > keeping support for the PERL increment, which in its current state has > various shortcomings. > I have added a section about impact on the PERL increment deprecation to the RFC. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/saner-inc-dec-operators I am also planning on opening the vote on this on Wednesday the 28th of June. Best regards, George P. Banyard --0000000000005022de05ff110db9--