Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Deprec ate functions with overloaded signatures

On 2 June 2023 14:21:49 BST, "Máté Kocsis" <kocsismate90@gmail.com> wrote: >I hope that I don't sound elitist, but codebases not using static >analysis... are kind of hopeless... Then I guess we should just pack up and go home, because right now PHP doesn't even have an official static analyser, let alone a mandatory one; and the evolution of Hack shows just how much the language would need to change for such a tool to guarantee full coverage. The needs of new users being introduced to best practices are different from those maintaining and modernising existing codebases. Sometimes, they're in direct opposition, but I think we have a duty to try to support both where we can. > The purpose is to have the "correct" return type. Is it worth it? Well, it home > depends... For me, what's important is that PHP becomes a more and > more predictable and accessible language, and I care less about minimizing > backward compatibility breaks. I think Claude is taking the same premise, and reaching a different conclusion: returning true is consistent with the other methods on the class, and that consistency makes it more predictable and more accessible. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]