Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101264
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain koalephant.com designates 206.123.115.54 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <c6247963-52a7-6532-676b-3f06a5c740e0@rhsoft.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:41:46 +0700
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <670DE052-934C-4EFE-9B70-C59736EAFAD1@koalephant.com>
References: <CAF+90c87_Zd07ftVe29=GdjxhxjkFG+VXfm_ZZ3QWqER50QLuA@mail.gmail.com> <91639df6-4fbd-a649-6558-7ae9130020ff@telia.com> <c6247963-52a7-6532-676b-3f06a5c740e0@rhsoft.net>
To: "lists@rhsoft.net" <lists@rhsoft.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)



> On 8 Dec 2017, at 08:54, "lists@rhsoft.net" <lists@rhsoft.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> Am 08.12.2017 um 01:38 schrieb Bj=C3=B6rn Larsson:
>>> Den 2017-12-06 kl. 20:49, skrev Nikita Popov:
>>> Hi internals,
>>>=20
>>> I'd like propose optional support for explicitly marking by-reference
>>> argument passing at the call-site, in addition to the declaration-site:
>>>=20
>>>      https://wiki.php.net/rfc/explicit_send_by_ref
>>>=20
>>> In short, while currently we have
>>>=20
>>>      function byRef(&$ref) {...}
>>>      byRef($var);
>>>=20
>>> this proposal would also allow
>>>=20
>>>      function byRef(&$ref) {...}
>>>      byRef(&$var);
>>>=20
>>> so that the use of by-reference passing is obvious without having to
>>> consult the function declaration.
>>>=20
>> I think this proposal has a good point about static analysers,
>> not just about human readability.
>> A good static analyser is very helpful for eg migration projects
>> and if this proposal benefits that, it's a plus. Also using same
>> syntax for references like in other parts of the language has a
>> value.
>> Now expressing the same thing in two different ways, with or
>> without & is confusing, so I think one needs to think about if
>> old syntax should be deprecated in 8.0
>=20
> to get this consistent that would also require change every line of code c=
alling core functions like sort instead of sort($array) as sort($array)
>=20
> i doubt that the benefits could justify the BC break
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20

I think Rowan's suggestion makes a lot of sense. There's zero bc break for e=
xisting code, but new/updated code can get the benefits of being specific ab=
out how the parameter is used.

I know "references are the wrong tool for any job" is a belief held my some o=
f the community - I'm curious if out/inout parameters solve any of their con=
cerns about references?

Cheers

Stephen=20=