Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114923
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:53:23 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <20210617115323.1a6c26d7@mcmic-probook.opensides.be>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_nKeFJMD8zZefCHNEhZyrp9snuKgj8VRxNhwUi8h41Bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c-HY-0fx+pTmntRJZKcQcZFfk3uJwrZ6FAMAx5_Wj+JHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<88588b8f-5729-4458-90b1-c602f751e128@www.fastmail.com>
	<CAF+90c9EaGreC0y6FagwLn+2OSQUgcQe9UmQdzZaqEYGw0aJbQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<33fd3541-8518-4f98-a258-705f85180ed1@www.fastmail.com>
	<CAF+90c_nKeFJMD8zZefCHNEhZyrp9snuKgj8VRxNhwUi8h41Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: FusionDirectory
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New in initializers
From: come.chilliet@fusiondirectory.org (=?UTF-8?B?Q8O0bWU=?= Chilliet)

Le Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:16:37 +0200,
Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> a =C3=A9crit :

> 1. Eagerly evaluate initializers on declaration. This is what I tried in =
an
> earlier revision of the RFC, and I don't think that approach works. It
> breaks existing code and has various other unpleasant complications.
> 2. Precisely specify the current behavior. I don't want to do this either,
> because the exact places where evaluation happens are something of an
> implementation detail. If in the future we find it convenient to separate
> evaluation of non-static properties on object instantiation from evaluati=
on
> of static properties and class constants (which are not strictly needed at
> that point), I'd like to retain the liberty to make such a change.
> 3. Do not specify an evaluation order, beyond that evaluation happens at
> certain uses of the class. Evaluation order may change across PHP version=
s.
> If your code relies on any particular order, your code is broken.

If option 3 is considered, it means the evaluation order may change, if we =
can
change the evaluation order, why not go for option 1? I do not understand w=
hich
existing code can break with option 1 and be fine with option 3, it means t=
his
code relies on undefined behaviors, no?

C=C3=B4me