Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101763 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22310 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2018 21:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Feb 2018 21:56:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.49 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.49 mail-pg0-f49.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.49] ([74.125.83.49:37446] helo=mail-pg0-f49.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 15/67-49805-C91877A5 for ; Sun, 04 Feb 2018 16:56:44 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id o1so2562287pgn.4 for ; Sun, 04 Feb 2018 13:56:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w8WPdaB7xhr3OrlJAZBu+IOVoUW0zTBmDdNYXFrgWFQ=; b=HLl8UyCSgc+C72jU7V7JhPGCJO8qH42TjUB580LK3pGWnNLHMyJoZVaftFXdkG9Da7 T3+jNO4ZXQXSu2YxHYm1GPpm3s0rp6uMm/TCxOUd2qhxdWG8JDJxlgmjOaJfdweCOUZ9 xdeRJ2IxcdnAqjfNkiyaKUpo612lwwcvJBiuT53AAuxiJhZOrDUEteXldj4xq8asippE 4rnKWR1wd3umedrpolt4L8NPVQjl2zUOB/qF/g9pBrEzwIowjQfIYmQdP2Gke69hOLmJ ukvwVfjpRhgQa1j37jga4vrfqVL/vAC3ojxDxkVnJFFXa56TGVm9E0BPSft53OTnqHKt jk7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=w8WPdaB7xhr3OrlJAZBu+IOVoUW0zTBmDdNYXFrgWFQ=; b=nuqwQcNSCamtOAgrt8QlcQFAyu7BGTFuFfaa2Jh11bVSgl0zobYanNtenBMt3f2qzj QhOYy1fnQ/AtVgc/pjcXE/lP1YdY++u/Ln+YOyApPHY8FSPtsBehma3i6cDQbEjBUyKL OGN5WRnavHmKQvN5ZASMQhoiFcZMTnu+Wt2ZVF83mtkt6ny48FrVV0bk94OazvP0yTKa h2aK06MaqOsYSg1JJbdeVl1ndh7JXfN7YJ4nvJVRO8wj+wA+wjw+RhHWVYar2/Mbbbt3 TyVFykCPZwkBy6mXh5rUw/lZGwNZoWwxor1fBBDN9YDePycFHOy5FjhxxK1aisL2/Lwc h3eA== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDqt/KSyMKwwmVqzfACI9lUjzz1gpueBttehxIxK//3HbsfqYeW Ob5h/tsZxdZbcummNaxGGFLB4X4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2256NbjVwE2/+p/KSCJiriFLsu/mhKYdT+T1VXnCXvmuaJLIzQGjJn1GPf+E4A0GdQM8U6Ci+g== X-Received: by 10.98.21.85 with SMTP id 82mr1869322pfv.150.1517781400926; Sun, 04 Feb 2018 13:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from Stas-Pro-2016.lan (c-73-71-144-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.71.144.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y131sm13541622pfg.69.2018.02.04.13.56.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Feb 2018 13:56:39 -0800 (PST) To: Benjamin Eberlei , Wes Cc: PHP Internals References: Message-ID: <07d9e3a0-d516-aa77-4818-ce8b02e8dd08@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 13:56:38 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:58.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/58.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecation of fallback to root scope From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! > To get the same benefits (jit and such) wouldn't it be better to introduce > a "use function root;" or similar statement or a declare() to specify this > file imports all root functions? We already have this right now, and realistically speaking, who wouldn't do that in their code instead of writing weird \strlen() code? Everybody would configure their IDEs and so to insert this automatically. So we're talking about RFC to make people work harder for what they already have now and then end up in the same place we are already right now. > was acted on at any time in the future. and in addition people will silence > the notices on global error reporting level, because violations would And note also that we can't silence just this warning. Which means people would have to silence *all* warnings, thus making all other messages useless. This is not a good development and this is not what we should be training users to do - saying "well, it's a warning, just silence it" is the worth idea we could have. If we create a warning, recommendation should be "it's important enough so we call your attention to it, please deal with it", not "just silence it". If it's OK in most cases (as opposed to rare exceptional cases) for it to be silenced, it shouldn't be there in the first place. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com