Re: Re: [RFC][VOTE] Nullable Types

On 12/05/16 12:39, Michael Wallner wrote: > On 12/05/16 13:36, Lester Caine wrote: >> > On 12/05/16 11:21, Davey Shafik wrote: >>> >> E.g. the behavior of passing executing with a null value for the >>> >> argument is something you should be consciously making a decision on, >>> >> and passing in null explicitly. >> > >> > I was actually getting the logic wrong... the problem with this proposal >> > is that I HAVE to add the '?' for many of my libraries to continue to >> > work simply because they do handle the null case. So what was a working >> > system is broken by this change. >> > > So you already have function foo(Foo $foo = null)? > No need to change anything. To be honest I don't know ... *I* would not necessarily add '= null' because that is the default case anyway ... I'm not sure fromthis 'little change' just what the full knock on effect is to code that goes back 15 years? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk