Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110762 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33927 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2020 22:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2020 22:15:18 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298081804CF for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:49 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,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-pf1-f180.google.com (mail-pf1-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180]) (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, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 207so6827410pfu.3 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h4B84SAemQeGJLdHdOeCCHnCm2N8neMPCQNUZzKaiec=; b=qK/Byq2Z0KlNkfy4wc4QCqsIDiSOSOhp6ckutOEWsqBLD3pZJahR2Jfq2TJrIzx1tE IHGe3h96jfEASz+Vk+1JNXACFC4MUspd2AeVXptlEppEiEVjqb8TisogpV9PKqwJ/2y1 ahg/X2zxFqq6hclXnysR9uZE2Bcr/h73GPn8sjJ72/BRciAlnnEIfG8V2811cNNkDudI OK9LoUn3E6sjSQfYVKjZ2V8FLPguyzqjK1qDpOG4frCNT8KTuZZAgGpl1NmQJhOZJKhB Cz8S8C1aED6bKBBJt4GOfphgNW4TxlOiUXLb4ncxy2croSsRlonZSRVvPvKLpo3DPgmc phog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h4B84SAemQeGJLdHdOeCCHnCm2N8neMPCQNUZzKaiec=; b=JSDdJ9/gY7QOXMwA976Gj090LGa3y1hQ4WEV3YTIQ/2f/fXDpVaLI99ATYXaB++aws aJuh9FsFVoAHtNNOdcKyuwipbU1Ihy+/Mum7cOg6Jf2lKecwE5Ds1DjBd2bcsPBG3eGT jhhk5mNxpBdxvKQwPrHrr8IMCNUg0EnoKorBXV/+9hPVGc6hnF9Vkv93MK6rs4qeTZJM 5l3UuJxLzVt1oF16qphrdno0GcFm+t67SAvJypPcUUAxbfRl0vJT4udPvX270X4bUA4J U7YFQ1/fKxbGGJLzfsJuTtOMfuCj8yy8eMHOKes3sJ3TcCmCAmFo0jaKZza1BV5rHg24 LRMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328X1oDhtsTEu/HL4urcKkiYxtL3lyrKLhmP1HVUwopaakF5m1/ XZIoufS7/oLTAwd/Sok1iCF8T0GTZw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0bh8R+Jm65XHWiRXwOvukRhPht/PStxdqYjEBncRTn2XQB30r4vPXU5KmW6SbVjeGaWRU0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f91d:: with SMTP id h29mr7589894pgi.185.1593378226404; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Stas-Mac-3.local (ec2-34-209-88-149.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com. [34.209.88.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z5sm5743005pfn.117.2020.06.28.14.03.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) To: Rowan Tommins , PHP Internals References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:03:44 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Improving output of syntax errors From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! > For more examples, see: > https://rwec.co.uk/x/php-parse-errors/comparison.html > > The patch can be reviewed at: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5722 I think this is great, thanks for implementing it! > I am happy to post a small RFC if people think this requires a vote. > > Any other feedback is welcome. I personally don't think it requires a vote, as error messages are an implementation detail and nobody should ever rely on it. Let's wait for a bit though if somebody argues that it needs an RFC, but otherwise I think we can merge it. > (As an aside, the other commonly requested change was to include column > numbers; this appears to be feasible, but definitely more complex, and > with potential performance trade-offs. I hope to re-visit this later.) Column numbers would be awesome too. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com