Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101266
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain jhdxr.com designates 52.59.177.22 as permitted sender)
To: "'Stephen Reay'" <php-lists@koalephant.com>,
	<lists@rhsoft.net>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAF+90c87_Zd07ftVe29=GdjxhxjkFG+VXfm_ZZ3QWqER50QLuA@mail.gmail.com> <91639df6-4fbd-a649-6558-7ae9130020ff@telia.com> <c6247963-52a7-6532-676b-3f06a5c740e0@rhsoft.net> <670DE052-934C-4EFE-9B70-C59736EAFAD1@koalephant.com>
In-Reply-To: <670DE052-934C-4EFE-9B70-C59736EAFAD1@koalephant.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:12:19 +0800
Message-ID: <009701d36ff3$e2d25e90$a8771bb0$@jhdxr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQJckwwRCza85XHd5amBBqp6ztYI8QHkFe7iAyTFHpECMLjTxKHs84pg
Feedback-ID: Yeas:jhdxr.com:qybgforeign:qybgforeign1
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax
From: me@jhdxr.com (=?utf-8?b?Q0hVIFpoYW93ZWk=?=)

On Friday, December 8, 2017 12:42 PM, "Stephen Rea" < =
php-lists@koalephant.com> wrote:
>> 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=20
>>>> 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=20
>>>> consult the function declaration.
>>>>=20
>>> I think this proposal has a good point about static analysers, not=20
>>> 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=20
>>> 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=20
>>> should be deprecated in 8.0
>>=20
>> to get this consistent that would also require change every line of=20
>> code calling core functions like sort instead of sort($array) as=20
>> sort($array)
>>=20
>> i doubt that the benefits could justify the BC break
>>=20
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe,=20
>> visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>=20
>
>I think Rowan's suggestion makes a lot of sense. There's zero bc break =
for existing code, but new/updated code can get the benefits of being =
specific about how the parameter is used.

Agreed, and I think those BC break change will be fine if it targets =
8.0. I know people always argue that it's stupid to break the working =
code, but IMHO it's ok for a major version update with good reason.