Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83363
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain garfieldtech.com from 66.111.4.28 cause and error)
Message-ID: <54E7C558.7030900@garfieldtech.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:38:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CANUQDCiPP9=_=ZDX7prvCNdXvxZRs3Awq-FaLDDE5K-U3hXZRQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANUQDCiPP9=_=ZDX7prvCNdXvxZRs3Awq-FaLDDE5K-U3hXZRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] In Operator
From: larry@garfieldtech.com (Larry Garfield)

On 02/20/2015 07:54 AM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> "In Operator" is now in discussion phase.
>
>> This RFC adds a new in operator which simplifies contains checks for strings and arrays.
>> Currently, we have to usein_array($needle, $haystack, true) or strpos($haystack, $needle) !== false.
>> These functions have a inconsistent parameter order, so it's hard to remember which is the right one
>> for each. The in operator makes these checks way more readable. Additionally, it also works for Traversable.
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/in_operator
>
> Question: The timline says "Line up any remaining RFCs that target PHP
> 7.0.", does that mean RFCs have to
> start voting on Mar 15 or should the vote end there?
>
> It would really make sense to vote on this RFC after there has been a
> vote on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/context_sensitive_lexer.
>
> Regards, Niklas

While I love the idea, strict type comparison for in would, in essence, 
be a toe-dip into the scalar strict typing world (see other thread) that 
would be very confusing.  Consider:

if (3 in $_GET['filters']) { ... }

That would always be false, because $_GET is always strings.  To make 
that work I'd need to first cast all of the elements in that array to 
ints... which I'm not actually sure how to do cleanly.

I'd much rather we tighten up the rules around implicit casts generally, 
as discussed elsewhere, and then allow those "loose but not as loose as 
we have now" rules here.

--Larry Garfield