I think #56426 should just be reverted entirely. It doesn't make sense for the Gate to be generic. It's in no way bound to a specific object type.

There's no way where going back to mixed is a good idea here. This prevents typing and static analysis. There has to be a better way.

There's no way where going back to mixed is a good idea here. This prevents typing and static analysis. There has to be a better way.

Why not? mixed is accurate. It doesn't even have to be an array, since Arr::wrap() is called. No part of the Gate implementation cares about the type of the first element of $arguments. There's also no way to narrow the type down on a specific Gate instance, because it doesn't hold a reference to the generic type.

Making Gate generic requires the template type to be known when a new instance is created. Gate::forUser() creates a new instance but doesn't specify the template type.

In summary: the generic type does not make sense here.

I've just hit this too. I believe you can have a custom Gate ability, custom argument interpreted by a custom handler, this sort of thing is technically allowed? So it really is mixed.

Gate::define('email', fn (User $user, string $email) => true);

Gate::authorize('email', 'hello@example.com').

I also just ran into this issue. I don't think Gate should be generic in the first place, but its kind of besides the point; changing interface arguments is a breaking change and shouldn't be done in a minor release. IMO the whole original change should be reverted

Oh the jack of all trades device that doesn't let you type it …

Reverted that entire PR.