Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101778
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain beberlei.de from 209.85.215.47 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:54:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEPJdu=SBAJiPf-jP27ViQJ=Rk4fk5m841L8=LhBa9HtScdSPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Wes <netmo.php@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045fb9944aa0cd056479ebf8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecation of fallback to root scope
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--f403045fb9944aa0cd056479ebf8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:56 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.
>

Yes we do have root namespace lookup, but its not automatic, it is only as
a fallback. This RFC is about removing the intermediate namespace'd check,
hence requiring \strlen.

My idea was to force all function lookups into the global nameespace first
by doing the declare or use. This way someone writing a file could state "i
dont use namespaced functions in this file, don't try to load them".

I agree its annoying and more work, just wanted to present it as an
alternative option.


>
> > 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.
>

Yes, this is why I have a problem with using E_STRICT (we don't have a lot
of them at the moment, but maybe in preparation of 8 more?) warning for it.
It would send a wrong signal to ignore rather than fix, because the amount
of violations would be massive.




>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>

--f403045fb9944aa0cd056479ebf8--