Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101764
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <07d9e3a0-d516-aa77-4818-ce8b02e8dd08@gmail.com>
References: <CAOv67gvh_TM8B+ZvJeMwQDN7wnC+n7JiW78Ydk+V3wRjsXigBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJdunk-uWhaqOtUP24qNzqv-EBvJnJncikPsfLBtjPkfwH8g@mail.gmail.com> <07d9e3a0-d516-aa77-4818-ce8b02e8dd08@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 15:43:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4Np1THDm1sedQANH3W4JqH6OP4xWW4V4vGbUn+q5xtz0hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>, Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecation of fallback to root scope
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree with Stas that this "use function root;" or whatever is pointless.

>> 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.

We have nearly zero E_STRICT warnings right now. Simply configure your
error reporting level to omit E_STRICT if you don't want them. You are
blowing this out of proportion.