On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 13:41, Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> wrote:
> [...] > And then it's totally unclear to me how this is supposed to affect > strict_types=1. > [...] > If the BC break is deemed to serious (maybe for string parameters only), > we better consider to undeprecate this, although that would make > internal functions behave differently to userland functions for > strict_types=0. But frankly, in that case the original RFC[1] should > not have passed, but it did, with 46 votes in favor, and *none* against. > I'm open to suggestions on how this should be handled, my RFC is just a draft. As to the original RFC, there wasn't really a discussion on it: https://externals.io/message/112327 The only person who raised a concern was Craig Duncan. And tbh, just scanning the RFC text, it's very reasonable, as consistency is ideal... but I didn't realise how much code would need to be changed until a few projects I work on started trying to use 8.1 (one team has gone back to 8.0, although I'm hoping they will accept a custom error handler to ignore these deprecation notices). Craig
