Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93270 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62655 invoked from network); 12 May 2016 11:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 May 2016 11:50:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:59166] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 88/FC-28272-40E64375 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 07:50:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 32618 invoked by uid 89); 12 May 2016 11:50:25 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 32592, pid: 32613, t: 0.8853s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52/d:10677 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.7?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 12 May 2016 11:50:24 -0000 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <573232DB.8030209@lsces.co.uk> <573308EC.70502@lsces.co.uk> <57346ABE.1070509@lsces.co.uk> Message-ID: <57346DFB.5020909@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:50:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] Nullable Types From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 12/05/16 12:39, Michael Wallner wrote: > On 12/05/16 13:36, Lester Caine wrote: >> > On 12/05/16 11:21, Davey Shafik wrote: >>> >> E.g. the behavior of passing executing with a null value for the >>> >> argument is something you should be consciously making a decision on, >>> >> and passing in null explicitly. >> > >> > I was actually getting the logic wrong... the problem with this proposal >> > is that I HAVE to add the '?' for many of my libraries to continue to >> > work simply because they do handle the null case. So what was a working >> > system is broken by this change. >> > > So you already have function foo(Foo $foo = null)? > No need to change anything. To be honest I don't know ... *I* would not necessarily add '= null' because that is the default case anyway ... I'm not sure fromthis 'little change' just what the full knock on effect is to code that goes back 15 years? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk