Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105222
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <010a5e8c-3614-6263-2553-b53b88be1273@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:42:21 +0200
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FC029E81-3CC0-4F95-A25B-4A2ECA7A6C7E@gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_DYFQ_7dXvHg-8DfVJ9zQT8xYfFObiJCLHFskFgqhJeQ@mail.gmail.com> <010a5e8c-3614-6263-2553-b53b88be1273@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate left-associative ternary operator
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)



> Le 10 avr. 2019 =C3=A0 21:21, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> a =C3=
=A9crit :
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
>> Inspired by Bob's recent RFC for concat precedence, I'd like to propose a=

>> deprecation and removal of the left-associative behavior of ternaries.
>> Instead, explicit parentheses should be used:
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ternary_associativity
>=20
> Please, let's not mess with language syntax and require people to
> rewrite their code just because suddenly after 20 years of existence in
> the language we feel maybe the precedence should be different. I
> literally can't think of a single case where it would improve anyone's
> life in any substantial way.

I bet that more than one developer has once written <?php cond1 ? value1 : c=
ond2 ? value2 : value3 ?>, and later has wasted a nontrivial amount of time i=
n order to understand why they got some wrong result. So, definitely, making=
 that trap a syntax error is a real tangible improvement of the language.=20=


> If you wanted to use parentheses, you can
> do it now - you can even have it enforced by code analyzer if you wish
> so, in your private code base.

A language that requires their users to use a code analyser (or to read the m=
anual thoroughly before starting to code) in order to keep their sanity, wel=
l, ... has a problem.=20
=20
> But I can easily imagine dealing with
> tons of deprecation warnings (which usually break CI unit tests and
> wreak general havoc) or even worse, useless errors, in existing code,
> which would become broken for no reason

As I can=E2=80=99t imagine a case where someone would have taken advantage o=
f the current left-associativity semantics, I can=E2=80=99t imagine either s=
omeone dealing with =E2=80=9Ca ton of deprecation warnings=E2=80=9D because o=
f that. But TBH, my imagination is sometimes very selective. However, what I=
 can imagine, is that hidden bugs will be revealed as a side-effect of those=
 deprecation warnings, and time will be taken to understand and correct them=
.=20

=E2=80=94Claude

> but... honestly, I don't even
> know how to finish this phrase, I can't even think of a single reason I
> could explain to anybody why their code would no longer work in 8.0.
>=20
> I understand 8.0 is a good target for breaking things. But that doesn't
> mean we have to do it as much as possible.
>=20
> And this absolutely doesn't mean we need to get 7.4 to break things (and
> yes, deprecation warning is breaking things, in most cases).
> --=20
> Stas Malyshev
> smalyshev@gmail.com
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20