Actually, that's not at all what we're saying.
I think that doing something like @$foo++ is absolutely fine. Many others
on this (and related) threads think so too. I find all the 'improvements'
with littered questionmarks to be a giant step backwards.
> Why were there notices if something wasn't wrong somewhere with the
We've been through that. You may want to take a look again at the
definition of what a notice is.
Zeev said the RFC was never meant to deprecate things and as such the
> voting would eventually not pass on to implementation even if it was
> accepted -
> "why then do you vote no on the RFC if it was never a valid vote to count?"
Which is precisely why I didn't vote on that particular part of the RFC so
far. That said - I am considering voting a 'keep notice' on it, and I'll
briefly explain why.
The choice between moving to a warning or keeping a notice is completely
legit, and moving it to a warning may even a good idea (mainly due to error
reporting defaults, even though a notice is technically more appropriate;
main worry is that it might constitute a reason for others in the future to
say it's no longer legitimate, and therefore it's no big deal to deprecate
it). The part of moving to an error exception is not - as it is a radical
change in functionality (and not a simple 'reclassification of errors'),
If I do choose to vote to one of the other two options - it should be taken
in the context of choosing between the two valid options, and not as any
sort of validation on the invalid one.