Re: [RFC] is_literal

Morning, https://3v4l.org/nJhc1/rfc#focus=rfc.literals It's not so much a bug as a side effect or quirk. Note that, the result is correct, in the sense that you do have a literal string - it is not marking an unsafe string as safe. It's just that existing implementation details - RETURN_CHAR using interned strings, and literal constant strings being interned by the compiler - lead to a literal string being "re-used". This is just a natural consequence of literal strings retaining their literalness in the way we want them too, nothing dangerous is going on. Cheers Joe On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 00:32, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 12 juin 2021 à 19:00, Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk> a > écrit : > > Hi Internals, > > I'd like to start the discussion on the is_literal() RFC: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_literal > > > Hi, > > I’ve found an interesting bug in the implementation: > > https://3v4l.org/JfSHX/rfc#rfc.literals > > —Claude > > >