This PR was merged into the 3.4 branch.Discussion----------[Form] Name related PHPDoc fixes| Q             | A| ------------- | ---| Branch?       | 3.4| Bug fix?      | yes| New feature?  | no| BC breaks?    | no| Deprecations? | no| Tests pass?   | yes| Fixed tickets | relates to#32179| License       | MIT| Doc PR        | n/aAs I started working on#32179 in#32237, I noticed some PHPDoc inconsistencies around the form's name. I have researched the issue thoroughly and here's my proposal:1. All "factory" methods (`FormFactory::create*`, `ResolvedFormType::createBuilder`, `FormBuilder::create|add`, `Form::add`) currently accept string and integer names. This should not be deprecated, because it's very convenient and natural to pass ints when adding children to types like `ChoiceType` or `CollectionType`.1. None of the "factory" methods explicitly accepts `null` as a name, although passing `null` works the same as passing `''`. I consider passing `null` in this case to be ugly, so I corrected the builder's constructors mentioning `null` as a possible argument. One should pass an empty string `''` when creating such a form. We could also deprecate passing `null` in a PR targeting 4.4.1. Currently the name becomes a string in the builder's (or config builder's) constructor. Which means that `FormConfigInterface::getName` always returns a string and thus the form's `$name` property is always a string. All related checks and PHPDocs should be corrected.1. The "children accessors" (`Form::has|get|remove`, `FormBuilder::has|get|remove`) should accept both strings and ints because they are array-accessible by design (so it does not really matter, if the key is a string or an int). If it's valid to have `$collectionForm->add(1, ItemType::class)`, then it should be valid to do `$collectionForm->get(1)`. And it works in code, but is not mentioned in the PHPDoc.ping@nicolas-grekas ,@xabbuh ,@HeahDudeCommits-------eae95c4 PHPDoc fixes