Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106782
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c9Kc6m_bv=aJxbD3-RmnNXXLqv6mPjHp7U7qxX_ck27qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLQC2z+GmOgbqxFWbAGS6B2z=mXTp72c6Be53ju4D6pNRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznxgkUFZ2os5Hx5rYmFCrATJ+LTOovK6W4J1cDw6oo45=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLQfg8CQOORWTO57Cfk92oM3DNmw0h9wt3jP9gSUCx+QWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHtznw1POVOtK656fWn+Vdj94RnHWmZ9A5rEHoWjiXXod=Piw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLR6j173SKUxR0gXnCARZ-Lg4mmZyOLJYD8hRfsKnp9CfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ed74ae0-5feb-39de-a39a-f9a8f80401b2@gmail.com> <342BB5DE-80D0-405E-8C71-D959F38D17E8@gmail.com>
 <b024d0fe-ac0f-d9b9-a389-b25804ac40db@gmail.com> <CAKuGYLT17d0pL9taO6M0xUPwu3dPU6nLRNGWFc89k0RtU6BM6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f99cd630-7321-fad5-f584-e108efa4ca0d@gmail.com> <98CDCF47-D262-449B-92BD-1E041A467B21@gmail.com>
 <e1be0cd1-da93-30f9-c996-68fe183359ee@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e1be0cd1-da93-30f9-c996-68fe183359ee@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:43:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEm8qBSg8LxWrwAbgp9=mPA7HEGed9ZVNSYEmawfpqO24AGKOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com>, Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d0fe8059135f641"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings
From: hisamsonolu@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)

--0000000000001d0fe8059135f641
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019, 12:33 AM Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On 8/28/19 4:23 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> > $foo++ becoming 1 when $foo is undefined is not intuitive to me.
>
> I guess we have different intuition.
>
> > To take a very trivial example, that behaviour causes =E2=80=9Cfor ($i =
=3D 0;
> > $i < 10; $I++) {}=E2=80=9D to loop indefinitely.
> This is rather shallow issue, which any modern IDE would highlight for
> you in about 0.5 seconds. No need to change the language for that.
> Frankly, I have hard time remembering when any of such typos ever get
> past IDE check since I started using IDEs.
> And, of course, it's completely obvious issue - you could as well forget
> to write $i++ at all, or write $j++ and have $j defined somewhere...
> there's a lot of artificial scenarios one could think of. No reason to
> change rules of the whole language because of it.
>

Can you point me to an IDE that runs on the server?
I think you are mixing static analysis error with dynamic runtime analysis.

IDE can't point to an error it doesn't know about(which I didn't code using
IDE but use notepad, where I didn't run full test before publishing to
production).

I don't think it makes sense to allow the language be a home of "anything
goes, no innovation".

A language without specification.

--0000000000001d0fe8059135f641--