Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:112401
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <34FA3E20-9D06-4D08-937E-4216FEF35504@gmail.com>
 <7E98C687-7A24-49E7-A14C-3D68B4B3419E@gmail.com> <CAAKU0ukpCZvQfgxXJjupOifHcAtkq5Kq_8Sd7JF2so6xykD03A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAKU0ukpCZvQfgxXJjupOifHcAtkq5Kq_8Sd7JF2so6xykD03A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:13:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_zQ=fs-XUFJ0DikrG4tsLpTngxRm9oLBdLnJkHpAg5Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levi.morrison@datadoghq.com>
Cc: Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000927b1505b595d4c8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Missing warning for stat(), etc. when invoked with
 empty string
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--000000000000927b1505b595d4c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:06 PM Levi Morrison via internals <
internals@lists.php.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:30 AM Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [Of course, I meant `stat()`, not `stats()`. Resending the message with
> correct spelling, including in subject line. Sorry.]
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > `stat()` and friends invoked with empty string or null as argument,
> return `false` (indicating failure), but do not emit the Warning that is
> expected on failure. See: https://3v4l.org/jXC2N <https://3v4l.org/jXC2N>
> >
> > That discrepancy between the two ways of indicating failure is
> problematic. Indeed, whenever I use one of those functions without
> prefixing it by @, I expect that it will either return a value of expecte=
d
> type (`array` in case of `stat()`), or run the panic procedure of my erro=
r
> handler.
> >
> > I propose to ensure that those functions always emit a Warning in each
> and every situation they return false/null (provided, of course, that tho=
se
> functions are not supposed to return `false/null` in absence of failure,
> and that their purpose is not to check for failure condition as in
> `file_exists()`).
> >
> > =E2=80=94Claude
> >
>
> This is a long-standing behavior. Further, I don't know many people
> who want _more_ warnings in their codebase.
>
> In other words, I disagree with this proposal.


This seems like a pretty odd position to take. I think there's two ways it
can reasonably behave:

1. Always generate a warning if stat() fails.
2. Never generate a warning if stat() fails.

While the current option is:

3. Always generate a warning if stat() fails ... unless an empty string was
passed.

I'm okay with either 1. or 2., but I don't think that 3. constitutes
sensible behavior.

Regards,
Nikita

--000000000000927b1505b595d4c8--