Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109535 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96952 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2020 13:11:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2020 13:11:42 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB771804C6 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 04:39:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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-vs1-f47.google.com (mail-vs1-f47.google.com [209.85.217.47]) (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 ; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 04:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-f47.google.com with SMTP id u11so7933319vsg.2 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 04:39:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IOojHXmp5eWNtT1olAq2irA9IyvUC9QwT5hlPBIjH9A=; b=2FZMmqQl0hg3AhPpwPhGljLPF1dYIWzr1lVpEgXgbPPexdWGo+4cYpTsTxoFZIijCc FuXropDUkVwVqXLXCEwgML1LEDPKVa4rDRpm/NpQL5aWNz2aOqMxAxwkpLThjEqk9K6Z Av/HQo+X4cn1pjRy4cNE0nF5cR7g6Ii/Yz9G/ej9vRm9XeDMX6V/6MVHi6pLGHHYHt7P nTN+VwSJzeMouAjfRbbsZqB9Z1+JrlqgV+ehzdcWYp554MUDtqcFWJxswXo1Z67OwR9Z kUm/7n/Jx74tChbj0g9ucMkdm5B7Ia5PuDuJHwslcirKwWwW6YO+TAOv/maZr6lDtNDh Ojhg== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IOojHXmp5eWNtT1olAq2irA9IyvUC9QwT5hlPBIjH9A=; b=C72LEAsv0aI/2quqIFOlPE/ejSmIOkQ08LQmB+StFQy9mFyZ+309xprDkiAEYiO6kU DtlQyPoAw2D2P7wucVkzb2MF9ibdsdcOw/Bt3GM3rv7CFQlBgLQOD2BW/DsqQAMWzKhc CCEE8sp2A0yglcHzEhDpQCuwXptKMk9V4iCaKQ/dFA9/zkDoCJS35bcwu1kaABNIZDEh g9hQwaa5OAgBww5qQclgWI9N1isob7rCMAkJfZeAPziL39qDISkzLKkeyzJQ9x2xxth1 /sNz+UtG4ab+XaBVugAia0uer6LuKL2DkPcddtvoUc/kbZFPOu2+Bh919qZIAyefV3Vp fp8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYCB0jz1pYG/a9B8ahxyPZt9nQyeWmDTrgOvpFFRVbKauqpYptF PDrmrb9CXuA70UfZvwjzv+ZUqEZwJw8UPw9/Y4oDRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKa1l3UkHHbvfWTavGnjGalDqx5MMKIyFxcAI32zAhNXSxtzgZzmmRvS91xLqqYPyjZK0a/RofIZdOnJ9nxVOw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:403:: with SMTP id d3mr10978100vsq.20.1586086742379; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 04:39:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 12:38:51 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ilija Tovilo Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] throw expression From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) Hi Ilija, On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 11:53, Ilija Tovilo wrote: > > > I did respond to that e-mail but probably got classified as spam as > were the other e-mails I sent with that address. This was my response: > > > I've thought about this some more. There is a reasonable way to recogni= ze this, namely to check if the expression after the throw keyword is of ty= pe ZEND_AST_OR or ZEND_AST_AND. The expression above will fail with this me= ssage (given that $condition is false): fyi your emails are not marked as spam for me any more. The issue is that as your words are written, it is not possible for me to understand exactly what you mean. "There is a reasonable way to recognize this" could mean: * This has been done and is part of the implementation people are voting on= . * This could be done and you think it can be done trivially so doesn't need to be part of the RFC. * This could be done, but you're not sure how it could be done and people are voting on it without being part of the implementation. Please could you say whether this issue has been fixed or whether it still needs fixing. The RFC as currently stands hasn't been updated since it was initially put to discussion. Which means that anyone just reading the RFC won't be aware of this issue that was brought up during the discussion. cheers Dan Ack