Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:105407
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c_DYFQ_7dXvHg-8DfVJ9zQT8xYfFObiJCLHFskFgqhJeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVoMGBst_SrzxQ_nwtLFng7hFSDBLF0+caosr9AACvozNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c977jGk_DxqcV5CZZz2Z-SP2DajqxkjrN7-i+R_JUmQAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVqpjkCszcewyAwsQbw9YVkXFqyeLhcsTjjyQr5dkNFvyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqpjkCszcewyAwsQbw9YVkXFqyeLhcsTjjyQr5dkNFvyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:56:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHN63oPSX9vdPiJ09COrwAh2sdiZLw3CFxULwszzLr1go1xm=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dcb1f05874b43d1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate left-associative ternary operator
From: mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")

--0000000000001dcb1f05874b43d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

the underlaying discussion here is more important; than just voting yes or
no on uncompleted hamiltonian graphs; the real question here does php8 will
be a break thru; meaning bugger off the mistakes of the past or a
continuation of them; until this RCF does not happen; I would say nothing
interesting will ever happen.

Have a good day.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:25 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:56 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't say I understand your position here. Don't want to change the
> > ternary from left-associative to right-associative? I can understand
> that:
> > Silent behavior changes are always problematic. This is not what the RFC
> > proposes though.
> >
> > Did the RFC change since introduction? I may have been looking at a stale
> load of the page (opened it up awhile ago and only just got around to
> responding).
>
> As for what it says atm, I still think it goes too far.  the warning in 7.4
> I can support, but I'm not a fan of breaking existing code on a feature
> that's this old. Ratchet up the warning in 8.0 if you'd like, but error is
> further than I'm willing to go on this one.
>
>
> > 20 years of code in the wild has not "accepted that fact and moved on".
> If
> > a left-associative ternary is used, it is almost certainly a bug. If
> people
> > use this structure by accident (because it is familiar from other
> > programming languages), I'd like them to get an error instead of having
> to
> > figure out why their obviously correct code is not working or, in the
> worse
> > case, just leave behind buggy code.
> >
> > I'm on dismal wifi at the moment, else I'd do some searches, but do you
> have any examples of code in the wild subject to this bug?
> I agree it's a lousy state, but it's not emergent.
>
> -Sara
>

--0000000000001dcb1f05874b43d1--