Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96136
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain kelunik.com from 81.169.146.220 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <006d8ac3-df7d-8890-5b60-56fbc9e856b1@gmx.de>
References: <CA+kxMuQqKL7=+7NEAT8Nh6cWofJkNkQj7ujm7Ksi2yW_6cH0dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZPtU6o2eypGrQay-+eOtkU=V_03uJNQpaRr2MVwAGGgbz7-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPwsocHWv5nQDufvTgJK4BkYsLidHxVD3NBAUkNXzOwL00kouA@mail.gmail.com> <006d8ac3-df7d-8890-5b60-56fbc9e856b1@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:09:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CANUQDCijPyr8KGSOiHMDGANJpwDYbi8F8MrBc1MAUwJL-_berg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
Cc: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11476d7e6ffab1053d581443
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] get_class() disallow null parameter
From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller)

--001a11476d7e6ffab1053d581443
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2016-09-25 15:19 GMT+02:00 Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>:

> On 25.09.2016 at 11:29, Leigh wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 06:29 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Also this behavior is clearly documented:
> >>
> >> http://th1.php.net/manual/en/function.get-class.php
> >>
> >> "If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is
> >> returned."
> >>
> >> I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean is
> this
> >> behavior and I recommend the (future) RMs to veto this change.
> >
> > This is ambiguous at best.
> >
> > "Omitted" and "Not omitted but set to null" are different things.
>
> However, the changelog entry for 5.3.0 states:
>
> | NULL became the default value for object, so passing NULL to object
> | now has the same result as not passing any value.
>
> And that's what I would expect when reading the function signature;
> after all, NULL is the default value of $object.


I think what matters is the documentation of the return value, not the
changelog.

Returns the name of the class of which object is an instance. Returns FALSE
> if object is not an object.
> If object is omitted when inside a class, the name of that class is
> returned.


It clearly says "omitted", that's passing nothing at all. Passing `null`
doesn't omit an argument, it passes `null`.

 I am opposed to break BC because we change our mind about how clean is this


I guess most code that might pass null is probably broken, do you have a
use case where the current behavior even makes sense?

Regards, Niklas

--001a11476d7e6ffab1053d581443--