Re: optionally return class name from gettype

Niklas Keller wrote: > I don't think it does require a RFC, it's not a language change. Let's see > if anyone opposes first. I agree to, if the internals agree, I guess that RFC is needless. Niklas Keller wrote: > I'm not sure on the boolean through, I think a new function might be better. In this point I desagree. I think that boolean is the best way, mainly to avoid a new function on userland. It's like an "extension" for gettype(), and make senses just extend it. 2016-07-29 11:21 GMT-03:00 Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>: > 2016-07-29 16:03 GMT+02:00 Ryan Pallas <derokorian@gmail.com>: > >> I love this idea (as I've written much the same code before), I do think it >> will require a full RFC though. >> > > I don't think it does require a RFC, it's not a language change. Let's see > if anyone opposes first. > > I'm not sure on the boolean through, I think a new function might be better. > > It's something that can be implemented in userland, but it's also something > that's really often needed. > > Regards, Niklas -- David Rodrigues