Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108270
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
CC: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] "use global functions/consts" statement
Thread-Index:
 AQHVwNgGtev425C1jEaW2/fYCDQJoKfqjUCogAA6vwCAABZSCIAF7qHQgAA+1YCAABKbIoAI/p4AgAAC2gCABEpcgIAAVS8W
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:10:08 +0000
Message-ID:
 <DM5PR07MB306745D45674C7C7380C358BF90B0@DM5PR07MB3067.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <DM5PR07MB3067B7578E3F04C5A20A221AF9210@DM5PR07MB3067.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR07MB30633FFAAF6E9CC45B3ECB43F9340@CY4PR07MB3063.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF+90c9svofd0rJV9ooDUb+rgsgE4+cbaahUnLzYqrksY+d=WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR07MB3067239059A936661E1100B5F9340@DM5PR07MB3067.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <DM5PR07MB3067A4F37F4D8E6738582859F9300@DM5PR07MB3067.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <b8e7ced4-9cec-4bde-a009-622c477a0e58@DB3EUR04FT030.eop-eur04.prod.protection.outlook.com>
 <DM5PR07MB306711A0E8F1CADB23C17CB5F9300@DM5PR07MB3067.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF+90c-Rmmh3+iYqFmn1E+W5-S1qT4BpPhN9wgroz=9ZudeWpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpkmawRgSJ2J8ZMoh_0MBskOgwJu-=HGJ42=6EQt+vz0Gw@mail.gmail.com>,<CAOWwgp=WB7sCKTovDEt6shOFZvyHWKxgCT0mdcvYHqLitCQmfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <CAOWwgp=WB7sCKTovDEt6shOFZvyHWKxgCT0mdcvYHqLitCQmfw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [paCfSF8dRPwDIEvJogNqyFY5e38ez6DT]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 46
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9f034d20-45b1-460a-7430-08d7a33aff53
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6NAM10HT078:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 difcO/qQwpenoHezBnjq9RPx4CtzD9yr/C2aX8yELnrE0JBRw8YX0mjD1RtJoUgYiFDuS0ARSbt19NkVqBY4oUOYUdBd0+gHDQtHNa/WmJ4yOt1u9lMRVyAWr8gQ0sjXvda9A990bpyYarFz+9ce0qtEpAE8KAogGpxo1OMuTCR1EX8HboKqeWK2gU1jiy9tmHPKovzPzKsclk8aIE6ZnfA7E7RIdk5z3So0dV/F6yo=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 P0s1iolCqVXKV7a0HJpFjI9iPpa1dHCW6+cqZuiAea7X2wFvJbGB3oF55nbNwsLAJeIXgq2JEyyjO8vaaD4BsQW/VcDhFBnFRJ60SSSLJob5RwKpeQFBMdv5azGiU1pPomb41mwRFNBQN8JiBAi1GQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9f034d20-45b1-460a-7430-08d7a33aff53
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jan 2020 15:10:08.2324
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6NAM10HT078
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] "use global functions/consts" statement
From: tysonandre775@hotmail.com (tyson andre)

> can we please discuss this alternative? In another reply, you link to htt=
ps://wiki.php.net/rfc/use_global_elements#deprecate_the_fallback_to_the_roo=
t_namespace_instead=0A=
> =0A=
> But this new proposal derived from Nikita's idea is different as it doesn=
't need to deprecate anything.=0A=
=0A=
I've added https://wiki.php.net/rfc/use_global_elements#add_setting_to_make=
_all_name_lookups_global_instead_eg_declare_global_lookup_1 to the discussi=
on notes for the RFC.=0A=
=0A=
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/use_global_elements is opt-in, and also doesn't ne=
ed to deprecate anything. The link you mention=0A=
is a different proposal that has deprecations for constants and functions.=
=0A=
=0A=
> I'm not comfortable with having a 3-ways declare directive. Who will pick=
 which of the 3 and for what reason?=0A=
> That's going to be a mess to review. If we're looking for a forward path,=
 there should be only one opt-in way: a boolean flag.=0A=
=0A=
I'm not sure what you mean by 3 ways. It's at most two, and a setting for g=
lobal name lookup might become mutually exclusive (forbid using both settin=
g names)=0A=
=0A=
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/use_global_elements is 1 way right now. `declare(f=
unction_and_const_lookup=3D'global')`=0A=
If anyone made a proposal for class names in the future, it would probably =
be 2 way.=0A=
=0A=
> If we were to make such a change (hypothetically), the way I would view i=
t=0A=
> is "use new name resolution rules" or not, rather than a collection of=0A=
> fine-grained options.=0A=
=0A=
As it understand it, "use new name resolution rules" (a single RFC for ever=
ything, including class names)=0A=
is a discussion on how name resolutions could be changed to measure interes=
t and get arguments for/against,=0A=
and not something being advanced as an RFC right now.=0A=
=0A=
> I think that's all we need to make all symbols resolve in the same way, k=
nown at compile time.=0A=
> =0A=
> You mention this should be another RFC. But process-wise, I think it woul=
d be better to vote only once on a specific topic, vs having several iterat=
ions that undo previous RFCs before having a stable consensus.=0A=
=0A=
The issue with that is that there's no good way to set up a vote or poll fo=
r that in the RFC structure.=0A=
I'd see global_lookup=3D1 and function_and_const_lookup=3D'global' as being=
 significantly different in who would vote on them.=0A=
The former requires a lot more refactoring and code changes to handle chang=
es to class name resolution,=0A=
compared to the code changes of just changing function and constant resolut=
ion.=0A=
The reason I'm not trying to make a secondary vote on this is similar to th=
e reasons why "use function..." vs "declare()" was a bad idea to vote on in=
 a previous version of my RFC.=0A=
=0A=
And because changing resolution of class names has those drawbacks, I don't=
 plan to change direction within this RFC.=0A=
=0A=
> I don't think it's a good idea to resolve the question of "use global=0A=
> functions" vs "declare" as a subsidiary vote. At least in my mind, those=
=0A=
> two options are significantly different, and this choice would affect bot=
h=0A=
> my overall opinion of the proposal and also the answer I would give on so=
me=0A=
> of the other voted question.=0A=
=0A=