Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109962
Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 10:51:00 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CANaX5nfM8AZmCsvFB7C_Bbx_jQdtgTLaKYi+_JrdFv7ki=_53Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANeKSiRbPFbP9GjWdwbQ3J4oLP2wjKGoxnz1EbVb9K0aejg4EQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADyq6sLw8tKcqV0ukjbkey5tXEraTk6zzbbTXB8_0_wO0xO6jQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANeKSiQJuMkF0Hyc+8GDoUVc_MNs_xtt+y97qv+LMuOCAtotEQ@mail.gmail.com> <4063585.LhOdPkFbeG@mcmic-probook> <CANeKSiRq4GDwHEk8Jyxf8LmC2V0Aqdeouki+BytxwShzJ1KaFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPKYkKzkUt=TerFmn+ZBoPG0hMOWqQ6x924kRMEj4bVVm8B_Hw@mail.gmail.com> <CANeKSiS_b+cUmJFurFu0s=t+7M5Uh2aL69QZOfViOsKfpN_kag@mail.gmail.com> <CANaX5nfM8AZmCsvFB7C_Bbx_jQdtgTLaKYi+_JrdFv7ki=_53Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <7A8FFA83-C713-4D3D-8630-EBA4BA76142A@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming PhpAttribute to Attribute
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 2 May 2020 08:23:14 BST, Davey Shafik <davey@php=2Enet> wrote:
>IMO, the onus of proof should be on those wishing to introduce a change
>that has a potential conflict, not those trying to prevent one=2E


While I totally understand the principle here, it does lead to two questio=
ns:

1) What evidence would you accept that this change was safe? I published m=
y findings from looking through 200 search results here: https://externals=
=2Eio/message/109880#109927 Is that enough for you to draw a conclusion one=
 way or another?

2) Why now? Why is this particular class's introduction facing a higher hu=
rdle than anything previously? Is it that previous introductions were "obvi=
ously" safe enough (I certainly wouldn't put "Error" in that category)? Or =
perhaps previous introductions did cause people problems, and we need to ch=
ange policy to avoid repeating those?


> I believe that using the PHP namespace is the right way to go


I'm inclined to agree, as a general policy, but I wouldn't want to see Php=
\Attrtibute introduced without two things:

- an agreed definition of which classes are expected to be added to the na=
mespace (e=2Eg=2E core language features vs extension functionality)
- a plan to rename those existing classes that clearly meet the definition=
 - probably things like Error, Closure, and Generator

Otherwise, it just becomes one more inconsistency for users to remember ("=
X was added in 8=2E1, so it needs a use statement, but Y is older, so doesn=
't")=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]