Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105120
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHN63oMjO-7cdnF55Mrj-MxVrq9mvm5=c2M681CuXLkE_Hez_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVpcTTC-77EjLgH-9jwbPgzaR2x_JV+D00SMffWKgU=bkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHN63oP4p-VdK=J3L3vi0GygHawRq5KkCHJEF0tFoQBtSezGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKrbcv42cyWYqLfizzNVGc55Z4qEW+X6gfxzoVENSrnZuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHN63oOfR3DD9b_xHLPUh20=jJFQTJH+Qce298k-4vm6X4bdKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <65AF9E1E-DFA6-47AE-952B-9ABEBD9B6038@gmail.com> <CAHN63oMqOgCgh6voyL0sjXQJEnMKQ=NJ+MXQuU0355EG8Apffw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHN63oMz1YM5c0V7QLGOJ=1LKEasMuHVxwsdbrxC==5Up6=mMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <284d1f9f-03d3-1488-77dd-82e18edf9f4c@gmail.com> <CAHN63oOqx9AxU=ofAQceKEQoJqYTuku1AWGa-sw=BLMTMP0Vjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <db94829a-3ffb-998b-08cd-67eb36ea4cc2@gmail.com> <CAFPFaMK5hs3y5VziAnqDjM1sz3-RLvQUgUj0gQYuxshbd_rFGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHN63oOZ6x6PEOJo=u9gVR-5f+87sD7jpwKnw7kKiohf3LSDLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3144F5D1-1F18-4C42-9B3E-AF1B1E598E47@koalephant.com> <CAESVnVqC+WkyCGp+EOUP_FVpbR2avoyVoRTXBLh5B0TiogykBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <917cb7bc-4abc-4bae-1a5a-b2ba1777fa55@gmail.com> <CAMuFt-5-U0KLnJEOT99-tVWntpT66RjWMWyc_E8b6i3XE42wfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKqF8vgOik8aRc8_dm=Y+o58NqA3PoYvpf7XZcXs55831A@mail.gmail.com> <CAG9XoMT9JTCXQ9-u-p+HHhAUkKOOKabiK5m5X6hp8EQ3XbtomQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG9XoMT9JTCXQ9-u-p+HHhAUkKOOKabiK5m5X6hp8EQ3XbtomQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 19:13:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oOQ=DTehSKZdZYMGDaN3E8932hAn7qERTUj5+5CQb0qhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Morel <benjamin.morel@gmail.com>
Cc: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099f6880585d3280a"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Question about adding !function_identifier
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--00000000000099f6880585d3280a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

there is some trace of absolutism in every statements:

first;;; saying php is a highly dynamic is not not fact but a sorry ***
excuse; ain't part of engineering ; admitting php5 is a load of idiotic
mistakes yes; I like people going for reality not ideology; with facts you
can work with ideology; an infinite debate of nonsense with fanatics.

second;;; you can properly handling it without a preprocessor as people
trying hard to name it by going thru abusing
statements about static analysis; it's all about handling an exception
process properly; but it will require to break
compatibility as I mentioned previously.

Best.


On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:03 AM Benjamin Morel <benjamin.morel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > Yes, I think we are rapidly approaching the limit where to make the
> > language stricter, we need an official static analysis tool, like Hack
> has,
> > rather than trying to do everything at run-time.
>
>
> It might even be possible to build this into OpCache somehow, so that if
> > you pre-analyse your code, it will skip runtime checks that it can prove
> > will never fail (e.g. return type annotation on a function that always
> > returns literals).
>
>
>
> > The tricky part is that PHP is a highly dynamic language (...)
>
>
> Features like scalar type hints, return types, property type hints, and
> preloading (which makes the definition of a type-hinted class available at
> compile time), should definitely help towards skipping a lot of runtime
> checks!
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 11:37, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 09:57, Robert Hickman <robehickman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > For instance:
> > > >
> > > > function foo(): type nothrow {
> > > >     throw new SomethingException;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to analyse the call graph at compile time
> > > (bytecode generation) and then trigger a fatal error? It wouldn't be
> > > possible for variable functions/methods though. A separate static
> > > analyser could do the same thing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think we are rapidly approaching the limit where to make the
> > language stricter, we need an official static analysis tool, like Hack
> has,
> > rather than trying to do everything at run-time.
> >
> > It might even be possible to build this into OpCache somehow, so that if
> > you pre-analyse your code, it will skip runtime checks that it can prove
> > will never fail (e.g. return type annotation on a function that always
> > returns literals).
> >
> > The tricky part is that PHP is a highly dynamic language, so there's a
> lot
> > of cases where the analysis can only return "maybe". My understanding is
> > that this is what a lot of the work on Hack is doing: creating a language
> > which looks a lot like PHP, but doesn't have as many ambiguous cases
> which
> > can't be analysed statically.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Rowan Collins
> > [IMSoP]
> >
>

--00000000000099f6880585d3280a--