Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109539 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18159 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2020 14:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2020 14:11:31 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2778F1804D3 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 05:38:56 -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=-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-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) (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 05:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id r7so11578926ljg.13 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 05:38:55 -0700 (PDT) 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=DlH4ooiL63qp2AN6MS+RoU3mKZtqpVjTs5Oa8072ag4=; b=Yi3FMdwgeaui5ApM366PyiqDvy0GCzEp2VP/l4lArrNydRHtJ+klshP/m2ZeAj4NhS BOOAxVBU/+YxfxNwfU42VbqSdKT2yphuMKwQtt2ThA6jtk7VpfzlEd/o+ZuktE8vIq3E q9fIeLcfvcRk9wggpOmHViwkVmXUAYtkLbbF5MtRTIkA9V9g1q0xUUKnspB2RC8fS0rH 1WGC5sctX3BqmvcWxi9zoiH3YIHjaqoM9au4RNR9axFluvpymDzHrMkB3D8F/I/k03SL lUQdsXz5EeIc+dpt6zhbWmiPCNvpqqHeU2mvXYZyNkztv7KvTJseZyO19bGmIF/mcaI1 Y3jg== 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=DlH4ooiL63qp2AN6MS+RoU3mKZtqpVjTs5Oa8072ag4=; b=YlrsGpekRLgN5m4t/1OJxsrAqrLrhUFlWW7F5EDLV1ELqrku5Rr1ZnHZpvDgkApC5f NtMzFC8B38qc2i8s9apCJISBDTKTMvNYbLkYOa3u8N2ar5fhIC915ItO6UoOvL9FjXz7 dmiw8saxjs3LAl7FqkCdjUE44/x17TJt7y1HIiZhyBeLNeyZRZsi/Dmly3LiUn0ylOWT 2qMfkTFUnlULRvC3UQWnjA2R6iSg6VM9gCmfEP4KFSuooQYyZQNr28fyEDLcyddaSOOY JtlkplzMtP0SxmJ/SF8QBkAWNd8UEpgMmzyFLW9zXNbH4yF0OaTitP2kvkme8rzWfkcq hjrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaOPCo7cDbMVNU8DtVgO9ZjPNKNlC5d+UcqE7IQslY2LyQM3bXJ otGt+4M+KXzB5a0cbaxsIzTalc0+aSe4r831uaM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJV+o8TrPk7I+VQAQ6NoDyr0xTO8nq8f/u8d7xdwwjI5qSJbL3LyWCIN98pc/atATWhT7nl7gHFmEpqqHuG7H0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8841:: with SMTP id z1mr9408741ljj.260.1586090333410; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 05:38:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:38:37 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ilija Tovilo Cc: Dan Ackroyd , PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7985505a28a6e1f" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] throw expression From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000e7985505a28a6e1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 2:05 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote: > Sorry Dan, at the time I sent this e-mail I wasn't aware you wouldn't > receive it. After not hearing from you I assumed you were ok with my > response. > > > The issue is that as your words are written, it is not possible for me > > to understand exactly what you mean. > > To be fair, you omitted the next sentence which does answer your > question, admittedly not as concretely as it should have: > > > IMO this is clear enough that a message for this edge case is not > necessary. > > So to answer your question more directly, no error message was added. > > > 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. > > Again, to be fair, yours was literally the only criticism I received. > And that example was taken from the RFC so it was already documented. > > Either way, I'm not opposed to a warning. What are the rules here, can > I add this small change after voting has started? > FWIW I (strongly) don't think a warning should be added for this. The only thing wrong here is calling this an "exception to the rule" in the RFC. This is completely standard and expected behavior given the specified precedence. It is in the nature of precedence that there will always be cases where the use of () is required, and this is one of them. Regards, Nikita --000000000000e7985505a28a6e1f--