Re: [RFC] Define proper semantics for range() function

Am 28.03.2023 um 00:36 schrieb G. P. B. <george.banyard@gmail.com>: > I therefore propose the "Define proper semantics for range() function" RFC > to address the unintuitive behaviour that sees no usage and/or hide bugs: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/proper-range-semantics > > The change propose to throw TypeErrors and ValueErrors for case where I > couldn't find occurrences in the wild and hide bugs, and emit some > E_WARNINGs for cases that are hard to detect via static analysis. I think it makes sense to clean up the range() function, thanks! There are two cases I would handle differently: - I'm not sure why a negative step for $start > $end is considered wrong, I consider range(10, 0, -2) at least as logical/readable as using a positive decrement of 2. Not requiring a sign for steps seems weirder to me but that's something we cannot change. *BUT* if it is the result of a calculation it seems wrong to require an abs() around it. I do see the reason for a warning/error when $start < $end and $step < 0. - Values of '' or null in integer context (e.g. range(null, 10, 2)) should IMHO emit a warning first, not directly be changed to a TypeError. The usual BC / migration concern :-) Regards, - Chris