Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113593 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88087 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2021 17:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2021 17:11:54 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7EC1804C0 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:05:57 -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-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 ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id f16so4127815ljm.1 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:05:56 -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=8jF5D+vvoBMM2gkDjByyoiIZbOHc8nFc4lwYvHAyAAI=; b=m3kfVCcLLFU5M18am65D7xxT1D6FrP1ajuWcZ0aSM6dgzJD7LJTgtuBKAnOkKHP+3q v5ee7ro5QI9+27q6/u5ws/ulEzUpGqQhYtMfjD229D8z1W2U3/bma9ep0audUqv+znhX Hwl1adUDs2fgd19ng5OthNpm8rHX5xLARoUQqzVZw8BDZzwD/nQuImaBUy8cPUfIMC1u O4pGF1xbK4wUdYj90YY5hb7Uuy0fjl95NRs9L1JeFiLt5guCct1mKeQU9LKa/Rrsr6aP Nu0WI38BKKBQTLE9xlDStHQ6FnR3b4fdTUCskRqjaoC/4B1ocmNjmO6GKl9Py/HRNBEx uKGg== 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=8jF5D+vvoBMM2gkDjByyoiIZbOHc8nFc4lwYvHAyAAI=; b=YH0WDS3yxnfzE5uFIMsdpdS3Ql96VELFwslzADNl8B35D0rxUi/2k3dY900+0snF9X 6Jcz06OqUBMrShz5t7CjEOPxbMTMwRgFRBEhrZrlUCT8DMQgVwv5fLc9S3/Fb1SK374a 1WKf4/K856P+jZRHh6ZehPbPTDGom0FUL+kLjOY4I660xDj///LOECnVkC/iiUgQMlWr XS4/kXEmjDUkH6lPXwnx4Obq4LzVbx+xyG9CtGz/gLT8guhg5lYRpEXiE3U/36O2k4Ha ixLm6TIagvATlMo6iBVkfIMPK5VluDbCZWNg7eL06oAPqWOmUTgRPacXkP7SMfezbMFo kMtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vBuyodbt79fBKT7NEHU6naRhEBxCnAOIKVrZVjVlWWeelgo7k g6BKJirAjbOqWuJwkOtaRO+nWs7iNpmBUiK7EyQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8p24DXxtnmO8xXF2qSXSIe++8xc0wJXnypQ3sDHyKktnFxuEgKHF+p3Z4WN8+3Kw7g/KKtpgAfzEHoJzd9zk= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5716:: with SMTP id l22mr2930730ljb.244.1616000754034; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:05:38 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6a9c105bdbe7e92" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Static variables in inherited methods From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000e6a9c105bdbe7e92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:48 PM Alexandru P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:30 PM Nikita Popov wrote= : > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:01 PM Nikita Popov >> wrote: >> >> > Hi internals, >> > >> > While looking into various issues related to static variable handling, >> > I've become increasingly convinced that our handling of static >> variables in >> > inherited methods is outright buggy. However, it's also long-standing >> > behavior, so I've put up an RFC: >> > >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_variable_inheritance >> > >> >> I have now created an implementation for this change, and updated the RF= C >> with some sample code for how one can preserve the old behavior, if it's >> being used deliberately. I plan to move forward with voting soon. >> > > Maybe it would be good to have links to some bug reports (that you > mentioned) or a code snippet like this https://3v4l.org/J8Mme > to clearly show that copying the static variable happens on inheritance > point, with whatever that variable was at that point > so it would be clear that the current behavior is undefined considering > only B class, if it would be to ignore what happened to A in the meantime= . > > Thanks, > Alex > We already changed that behavior for PHP 8.1 independently of this RFC -- static variables will no longer depend on point of inheritance. This RFC is in addition to that change (and subsumes it really, because point of inheritance cannot matter anymore.) Regards, Nikita --000000000000e6a9c105bdbe7e92--