Re: [VOTE] Stricter implicit boolean coercions

> It would have been interesting to get some more feedback on why people > voted No - some took part in the discussion, but most didn't. Indeed... Of those who did, I have retained the following arguments (sorry in advance for any omission, approximation or misinterpretation): - no impact analysis (but seems difficult...) - it would increase the discrepancy between e.g. if ($x) and takes_bool($x) (already existing for non-scalar $x [okay VS TypeError], but now for scalar $x too [okay VS deprecation notice]) - the deprecation should apply to all floats (even 0.0 and 1.0) because floating-point equality is risky - the deprecation should include the string "0" (VS empty "") because it's a recurrent WTF (and maybe even in all implicit boolean evaluations [e.g. if, && etc.] too) - we should rather deprecate takes_bool($string) and takes_bool($float) totally (i.e. all strings and floats), and also takes_string($bool) and takes_float($bool) (but maybe don't need to change takes_bool($int) at all) Note: I think that generally there can be arguments in both ways... > I think the RFC would have helped > identify obvious bugs I agree ;( > thanks to everybody who took part in the discussion, it was an > interesting experience. Thank you ;) > If anybody still wants to give some insight on these reasons or a way to > improve boolean coercions in another way, I would be happy to hear it. Sorry I don't have better ideas... Maybe others will? -- Guilliam Xavier