Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115381
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFv4g+HRHrvCOTgpbVfCXj06De1kL+1+RwnGgq6tcyLNAtLfQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8DbBajg7yukYkyXeJp2RU3JngLcr_zJdP=tOw9ebb6ag@mail.gmail.com> <5144ede56329a246e0c95469d887bb79@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5144ede56329a246e0c95469d887bb79@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 15:07:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFv4g+HU4vN79ga6a5ZdmFQXwZrLEVUHmMJrAD=EBef=2BoN8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Lauri_Kentt=C3=A4?= <lauri.kentta@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a361705c6b14b32"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] is_literal
From: craig@craigfrancis.co.uk (Craig Francis)

--0000000000000a361705c6b14b32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 11:49, Lauri Kentt=C3=A4 <lauri.kentta@gmail.com> wro=
te:

> is there a compelling reason why the internal names couldn't be marked
> literal
> (even if it's technically "wrong")?



Hi Lauri,

Just again quickly noting we=E2=80=99re only talking about ~0.43% differenc=
e,
nothing major in any way.

But we wanted to ensure developers didn't wonder why something was seen as
a literal in one case, but not in another (we wanted to ensure
consistency), because most people don=E2=80=99t know much about how the int=
ernals
of PHP work - especially optimisations which are supposed to be kind of
=E2=80=98invisible=E2=80=99 to developers. This change also helped when a c=
ouple of other
compiler optimisations happen:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_literal#compiler_optimisations

Craig

--0000000000000a361705c6b14b32--