Hi Adam, On 18/05/2017 14:59, Adam Baratz wrote: >> >> If you search the archives, you might find that I wasn't happy to have >> PARAM_FLOAT without some kind of PARAM_NUMERIC. You're basically saying >> that my point was irrelevant and out of scope. Aww, thanks ;) > > I'm sorry my update sounded like I was ignoring your feedback. Another > change was meant to address your concerns about people misusing > PARAM_FLOAT. Most drivers won't force casts on these values, so if you pass > a string with this type it will work the same as if you used PARAM_STR. > Isn't that the foot-gun you've highlighted?
If you add a parameter that is not going to be used 99% of the time, then it's even worse. > Maybe we should approach this another way: is there anything that could be > changed with the RFC to change your mind about it? If not, this > conversation is a waste of time for both of us. As it is now, I'm afraid not. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
