Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107069 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68752 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2019 11:53:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp3.php.net) (208.43.231.12) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2019 11:53:24 -0000 Received: from php-smtp3.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032152C1342 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:29:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp3.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS36351 199.187.172.0/22 X-Spam-Virus: No Received: from tbjjbihbhebb.turbo-smtp.net (tbjjbihbhebb.turbo-smtp.net [199.187.174.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp3.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:29:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=php.net; s=turbo-smtp; x=1568971770; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received: Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date: Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; bh=X0tHFw5+GN+bY2rIxduDoH aLG+GEDSeB74gRml+CFNA=; b=WJgLahXTmlB2Icb29C8/dgQXqxnyzoz51Rz7r0 iHa5MXgjlGoSxTisqal3v2AVXtYRIjtGuv6tB2teBzpsluYTRdz0IWOhIkBsBvCv ejNiq7XaKPj7FanxWTUbvSB8WcG+zTbaXuQ+d8SMRa1Ujf6MV52mLKdFHqYXjN9t 08vWA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net; h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=nUFuyvMyAO0pQl333CY1Afb5fnIrEHwtt+7ybooM1uTj5a9kDJ/+IJ41mumqoq QFn3/M3qu5pKMzNDf2v1ACIVaHzAwTkDMfXcHt0eWEJ/XcXZjhM7AAQJendpWuzt waPvTT0x61//3vlj0XxPPj1XORad34lACWZkZADpJJTkc=; Received: (qmail 29929 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2019 09:29:29 -0000 Received: X-TurboSMTP-Tracking: 5279871070 X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXo2Ol4s2N2/MehCpLcu/Uw7sctFVA1J5MVUKgZDbCCPBJtT7ti nFCfYLAo8gt2JYI4zntc12iRsNXgCLJyJSCzbiA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyiIjq8AqGLgaO9ecOahv3Lh2BezJAaSF0U9OHYnxex8kECUppTPFORLMhIfdO16x89VJtXH0pieKbyTxCrnyc= X-Received: by 2002:a37:684f:: with SMTP id d76mr19661989qkc.415.1568366967818; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 02:29:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <076701d56978$86020910$92061b30$@php.net> <078e01d5697c$5512bc10$ff383430$@php.net> <31BD63BC-ACE0-4478-B241-E698D2D6F59C@newclarity.net> <16AF0744-80CF-4245-B8F7-2A841C2461E1@newclarity.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:29:16 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id: Message-ID: To: Olumide Samson Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe8df305926be347" X-Envelope-From: Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski) --000000000000fe8df305926be347 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 AM Olumide Samson wrote: > "We know it is bad or can be devastating Actually, that's not at all what we're saying. I think that doing something like @$foo++ is absolutely fine. Many others on this (and related) threads think so too. I find all the 'improvements' with littered questionmarks to be a giant step backwards. > Why were there notices if something wasn't wrong somewhere with the > behavior? > We've been through that. You may want to take a look again at the definition of what a notice is. Zeev said the RFC was never meant to deprecate things and as such the > voting would eventually not pass on to implementation even if it was > accepted - > > "why then do you vote no on the RFC if it was never a valid vote to count?" > Which is precisely why I didn't vote on that particular part of the RFC so far. That said - I am considering voting a 'keep notice' on it, and I'll briefly explain why. The choice between moving to a warning or keeping a notice is completely legit, and moving it to a warning may even a good idea (mainly due to error reporting defaults, even though a notice is technically more appropriate; main worry is that it might constitute a reason for others in the future to say it's no longer legitimate, and therefore it's no big deal to deprecate it). The part of moving to an error exception is not - as it is a radical change in functionality (and not a simple 'reclassification of errors'), aka deprecation. If I do choose to vote to one of the other two options - it should be taken in the context of choosing between the two valid options, and not as any sort of validation on the invalid one. Zeev --000000000000fe8df305926be347--