Re: [RFC] Reserve EVEN MORE types for PHP7
| From: | Larry Garfield | Date: | Fri, 20 Feb 2015 23:29:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Reserve EVEN MORE types for PHP7 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-83360@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 02/20/2015 02:23 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Markus Fischer <markus@fischer.name> wrote:"resource" is problematic as that is the proper name for "the thing that corresponds to a URL" in REST. I would be shocked if there aren't classes named Resource (namespaced or not) floating around in web services code. I actually started writing one myself at one point on the side but got distracted by something else shiny... --Larry GarfieldOn 20.02.15 18:55, Sara Golemon wrote:One thing we must do before even considering non required names is to actually check every major apps, frameworks or libraries. If we can avoid a date/datetime clash again, that would be awesome ;)Announcing this in its own thread: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_even_more_types_in_php_7 This RFC acts as an addition to Levi's https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7 by creating a forum for voting on additional types not included in his RFC: resource, object, scalar, mixed, numericFrom the RFC:“resource” “object” “scalar” “mixed” “numeric”"... prohibits their usage as class, interface and trait names." This is such a major BC break.