Re: [RFC] Counting of non-countable objects
| From: | Christoph M. Becker | Date: | Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:53:20 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Counting of non-countable objects | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-96428@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 17.10.2016 at 23:09, Craig Duncan wrote:
> On 17 October 2016 at 21:57, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the motivation for throwing a deprecation notice
>> instead of a warning. In particular, what is the action that will be taken
>> here in the next major version? I guess we would throw a warning and return
>> false (instead of 0/1). But is the change of return value from 0/1 to false
>> really sufficiently worthwhile to go with a deprecation first?
>
> I don't feel strongly either way, as long as there's some clue that
> something's not right.
>
> Is there precedent for adding warnings in a minor? Would there be BC
> concerns there?
<https://wiki.php.net/rfc/notice-for-non-valid-array-container>
is
supposed to introduce a new E_WARNING in PHP 7.2.
And yes, there is a (small) BC break, but even E_DEPRECATED might be
regarded as such.
> I wouldn't want an RFC for a warning to fail when people would have voted
> for a deprecation.
You might consider offering this as voting option.
>> In any case, if you want to go with deprecation, please specify what
>> action this RFC implies for PHP 8.
>
> Would it be acceptable for the RFC to state that this has no implications
> for PHP 8, and is an indefinite deprecation?
In my opinion, an indefinite deprecation doesn't make much sense.
--
Christoph M. Becker