Hi all, I'd like to restart the discussion for the strict_opterators RFC ( https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_operators). A number of changes have been made to the RFC since the last discussion. These are aimed at limiting the situations where `strict_operators` will change the behavior rather than throwing a TypeError. 1. Comparison operators >, >=, <, <= and <=> with string operands will throw a TypeError instead of behaving as `strcmp`. String operands on comparison operators are likely to result in unexpected behavior. However, the use case of comparing strings as numbers is too common to change the result of this comparison. Additionally, there may be issues with locales. Users should use `strcmp` or `Collator::compare` instead. 2. All comparison operators (excluding ===) on array operands throw a TypeError. This means it will not be possible to compare an array as an unsorted hashmap. While this distinction is useful, it's not well understood by most. The major issue is that it's tied into strict vs loose comparison. Allowing this would result in many cases where the operation results in `false` with strict operators while resulting in `true` without it. The alternative of throwing a TypeError based on the contents of the two arrays goes against the principles of the RFC and brings a lot of complexity. 3. Concatenation operation (using .) on null will not be affected. The operator will be cast to an empty string and no TypeError is thrown. 4. Variable parsing in strings specified in double-quotes and with heredoc is also affected. This removes the distinction between using the concatenation operator and variable parsing. With `string_operators` a TypeError is thrown when using a boolean, array, or resource in variable parsing. Arnold
On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 23:03, Arnold Daniels
firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:> I'd like to restart the discussion for the strict_opterators RFC ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_operators).Hi Arnold, That RFC is quite big, and I'm finding it hard to fit it all in my head. I know it's annoying when people ask for more work to be done, but would it be possible for you to make a php file and chuck it as a gist somewhere, that contains the complete set of things that are currently undesirable, and what the new proposed behaviour would be? I think people being able to download a complete code example, and read it in the editor they use everyday, will make it easier to grok the current problems and why the proposed changes are appropriate. btw the "Proposed Voting Choices" section currently doesn't have a proposal of voting choice in it. cheers Dan Ack
On 15/05/2020 23:03, Arnold Daniels wrote:> Hi all, > > I'd like to restart the discussion for the strict_opterators RFC ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_operators).I think this kind of change will have a long term positive impact, but it will require a lot of work to update code. IMHO we need to know what is happening with editions, as I think this would be an ideal candidate for that rather than another declare It would would give people
years warning that they've got that long to add their correct castings etc before the old behaviour is removed.
> On May 15, 2020, at 17:03, Arnold DanielsIâm having trouble wrapping my head around this statement:
email@example.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'd like to restart the discussion for the strict_opterators RFC ( > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_operators).> To compare two numeric strings as numbers, they need to be cast to > integers or floats.As an example, the RFC shows: "100" == "1e1"; // false (int)"100" == (int)"1e2"; // true But this is identical to how PHP works today. I think the identity operator is more expressive in this case, especially to show intent.> The function of the === and !== operators remains unchanged.So, while `true != 0` throws a TypeError, `true !== 0` continues to function as it does today, without a TypeError? I find this behavior confusing and unintuitive. I can see the value in what the RFC proposes (strict type comparisons), but I think the behavior proposed still needs work. While I understand itâs opt-in on a file-by-file basis, I donât think changing the meaning and behavior of existing operators is the right approach. Maybe if we could introduce new comparison operator symbols? But Iâm not sure what those symbols would be. Cheers, Ben