Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106935
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <D5DDA318-E953-4AB8-873F-7CA7264722E2@koalephant.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:41:36 +0200
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E30D9A22-9842-4A67-ABA5-A339875FFE12@gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c9Kc6m_bv=aJxbD3-RmnNXXLqv6mPjHp7U7qxX_ck27qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c_KHYm1SLOKkZXM6xurYiDTX3=hbijpD8rT1OSUHSod_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CEC35EF9-9956-44BE-8C8E-EE5FC3D5A7C7@gmail.com>
 <D5DDA318-E953-4AB8-873F-7CA7264722E2@koalephant.com>
To: Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings
From: claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)



> Le 12 sept. 2019 =C3=A0 10:17, Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com> =
a =C3=A9crit :
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ve seen a number of people that have concerns about PHP =
throwing actual errors (as opposed to notices) because they try to use a =
variable/offset that doesn=E2=80=99t exist, and of course there is often =
a proposal to have a declare statement or something similar, to allow =
their =E2=80=9Ccode style=E2=80=9D to run without errors.
>=20
>=20
> So, my proposal to the situation is to introduce a single declare that =
solves that problem, once and for all.
>=20
>=20
> 	declare(sloppy=3D1);
>=20
>=20
> This would suppress any errors about undefined variables, array =
offsets, would reverse the =E2=80=9Cbare words" change when encountering =
an undefined constant, etc. Heck, for good measure this mode could even =
re-implement register_globals and magic_quotes, because why not?=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> If you want to write sloppy code, that is entirely your prerogative, =
but please just own it for what it is, and stop pretending that it=E2=80=99=
s some herculean task to either define variables/offsets first; or check =
if they=E2=80=99re defined; or use an appropriate method to access them =
that specifically allows for undefined variables/offsets (i.e. the ?? =
and ??=3D operators)
>=20
>=20

Declare(sloppy=3Dyeah) is not granular enough. To all: please, do =
understand that everything is not black or white; this remark is not =
directed specifically to that particular issue, this is an attitude I =
see regularly on that mailing list.

There is no such thing as =E2=80=9Cone true strict coding standard=E2=80=9D=
 and =E2=80=9Cone legacy lax coding standard=E2=80=9D. For instance:

* As time passes, we learn by experience what features were plain =
blunders (magic_quotes?), what features should have been more strict for =
the sake of catching bugs without imposing too much burden on users, =
what features could have been more strict, although that would impose to =
write lot of boiler code, etc. This process does not belong exclusively =
to some past dark age of sloppy and unsecure coding practices.

* The degree of wanted strictness vary depending on occasions. For =
example when I=E2=80=99m writing a throw-away script, some notices are =
okay to indicate possible problems, but I=E2=80=99m not going to write =
boilerplate code (or, worse, put a @ in front of everything) just for =
the sake of silencing them. (But I *certainly* do not want stupid things =
like mistyped constants converted to string literals.) On the other =
hand, when I=E2=80=99m writing a critical part of an application, I am =
careful to write down everything precisely, and having to write =
explicitly and once for all that, yes, this precise variable must have =
that default value, is a minimal part of the time passed to write, =
re-read and review the code.

=E2=80=94Claude=