Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108264 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83491 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2020 11:41:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 2020 11:41:44 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAF3180511 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:51:49 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 9so5731002lfq.10 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:51:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u/80g3CyWGCf8vsoEACyw+VcKKOxXBhP3Zl/FErpLSQ=; b=uB0dZBEh+EAuVAZmbvEsS1Vq5gP12dT7DdlKci4VemaM4UfoQzgeisfn9xssWdIPiZ cbSIyQi0vm6Hfjt9a+VguoyARbq3B7a1/8GelkK4KAMACxWLYneK9QJF5Vao7ZOr301b kQbiqflxD6QQzuIReu8WDdPU34WLUxsyrtD7DlC8e38pt8pQi+kSaSncoiThaAPT2smj 9Ygg25YdnWUK2+erEx6HRY0OLZUGUx1/XUPi50gCx1KDT59I8Ixh3611WA6Tf2KBNnAF Vt1t1xxMlWYhsPBi/JTIVKHTisStgRh6f/quQ7Ms194v9zq0cwYJVwLUiR0+PzTJUtW8 HK5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u/80g3CyWGCf8vsoEACyw+VcKKOxXBhP3Zl/FErpLSQ=; b=Jip9JaOdCsCfSVTUOU2rhsB/mjU5damc3LOACTI7N88xuluSlW2BG6THaSMZN/BEau 9q9o39/xsvmOS1FaEnnBSCAwd6sn/725rECUAiKADeu4CVLK9p1GiC8vaUEFLVOFdAxZ iDRtMMaX6DbGJRhG3eXDlMHKOtqXOO9A2Hua2dDmlRtbYyNXE/bnJbwqAmP+fz8noG2G L4tpU4eWaP2aE2BViyd1SNHly4vzjP8uOnH8V7hPs63tHmRuvWZjaO9jBru4fznHP3Ap uMlE+Fo/d8K9HaNYZ2l/Iuyc8MsaaEVYDfeLbip3FSCGYaqOWKQIm84+WKYiCFDhId3U 28Eg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9YsyzM5RnpDNlz3Y5dzAH8AOvbkz51wsTLWnA9GSOg9OaTyYy pBKdRM74z6dE4G9ESSWALpQt8zN+8F+xaoPoYIw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxinl5moVO3wJ8IuwFgsHgOHQJd3j9rWHp871ft4PTcjY0AXke79XUAbeRz0WS8Pk6A+r7cf+5WFUiX1MuvNO0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4add:: with SMTP id m29mr7692120lfp.190.1580118706968; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:51:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:51:31 +0100 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Morel Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b5ab0059d1c0e3c" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] WeakMap vs PECL WeakMap From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --0000000000003b5ab0059d1c0e3c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 2:58 PM Benjamin Morel wrote: > Hi Internals, > > A year ago, when WeakRef was being proposed, some objections > related to the PECL Weakref > package had lead the RFC > author, Joe Watkins, to rename WeakRef to WeakReference to avoid conflicts. > > However, the latest addition from Nikita Popov, WeakMap > , did not take the same argument into > account, therefore conflicting with PECL WeakMap > . > > *First of all, how will this be handled in the docs?* > > Now that we have a conflict on WeakMap anyway, and now that the PECL > package has been deprecated, and provided that the conflict can be > gracefully handled in the docs, *is there anything that prevents > WeakReference from being called WeakRef?* > > Could we have both names in PHP 8, like WeakReference being an alias for > WeakRef? > I don't see a point in renaming the class now that the WeakReference name has been chosen. I don't agree with the reasons *why* it was picked, but it's not like "WeakReference" is a bad name in itself. That's what Java calls it as well, for example. Regards, Nikita --0000000000003b5ab0059d1c0e3c--