Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117117 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96553 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2022 12:33:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 2022 12:33:50 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D381804AC for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 05:53:19 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, 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-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) (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 ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 05:53:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id qk11so43237135ejb.2 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 05:53:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+ByYEnC8r5e5haGDIHQzeSzHHZgGK/FAalg3uioFOa8=; b=WOs4BwOGVBVpH/VRdYjf+5uF29Afa2B+p5sRgSgy8y4azi3uKuJZANCCs16QE3NdSx rfim+xU/pgJRPtylJ1q2k9CGK9Y/IDzM3gEYus56c0SAYY0yEW3QQD6zk69SocGSgWG7 TYV2CsffncadO3WL4jT6bVzmRWiWjkI2k6s5jrGtGkeFGUOpViygICvnKipZ78U4RUiJ mRDGVd3c0CXOLivvYVVaDfGOiAUGKVTRUONqpRyCZii62MfhD/z7ZeiBQBmW/lisnvXw MPtEYk43RapT5aoySBYFcuyfZSl1XS/6KwBlil+6nlD3Dv67PwwcqD1srXbB48o5fvsv KVkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+ByYEnC8r5e5haGDIHQzeSzHHZgGK/FAalg3uioFOa8=; b=lff4ufAcA1ZRSWrunddDBZW+QNlpDA9xXE7oYfKJlW1ugS2XlQP3NGFnCaQi0o82xN vDut8kubgvVBIvh5Ht6ndyuPRRya619dk00vQ2tmy0Wrz5QQ0KRKc1hLOyUh7djFNTT1 8cItPsp8idXwORAT2JHM4sunDTF6zXClX2R0fzng3rGU+pu70xGoBobU/Y+HrVe4Qe5I gyCtYSNJApE5diiATsbOHAsZchVzs9GK4+nlacfTKxvoHqbE90Rd/OhEMhrikZKR+GRo Uk4dtcGFpZvkaGFOyGaikslzRP9BWXb9q4WoYE5C8WNGUJQ7lcTJ1k70KmQ6ccX1i9GR aikg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531EcaUdqcwcPHnlGMXBQlMe4LAUHKWezw6jLNHzUgE4CsIL3M7+ uio0xncnl+tqrGY4/F2a5CHDpihNq9C5GEN5tgU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTEG9Cz7KdHp6pAQjTm0E1EBzVPtM4nmaj1kk4bpeMeQJUkoZCdidcYeQGJb/adyzaM+52f6esD90Udqin9ME= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3152:b0:6cf:d100:a8b2 with SMTP id e18-20020a170906315200b006cfd100a8b2mr19566988eje.529.1645537997104; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 05:53:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <620eda0f.1c69fb81.d2cb1.0846SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5efecaef-a024-3c61-e12e-ffc342956718@gmail.com> <6214c40e.1c69fb81.73261.05d3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <6214c40e.1c69fb81.73261.05d3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:53:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: Mark Randall Cc: PHP Internals List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c829c505d89bab42" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Undefined Variable Error Promotion From: nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com (Nicolas Grekas) --000000000000c829c505d89bab42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mar. 22 f=C3=A9vr. 2022 =C3=A0 12:07, Mark Randall a= =C3=A9crit : > On 22/02/2022 09:15, Nicolas Grekas wrote: > > I very much call for an implementation to be provided before starting a= ny > > vote on the topic btw. > The RFC states on its first line that accessing an undefined variable > emits an E_WARNING. If it does not currently emit an E_WARNING then it > is out of scope of this RFC. > This last sentence could be worth copy/pasting into the RFC :) Thanks for the recent edits, they help clarify to me. > It is not sensible to provide a full implementation for something that > will require extensive engine and test changes for something several > years into the future, during which many other changes will be made. > > A sensible time for this would be after the branch is cut for 8.4. > I understand if the target is to do everything in 9.0. But this makes me think: we should trigger a deprecation just before all corresponding warnings! This would signal the change to 8.x users and help them spot where a change is needed. This should happen before the warning to that error handlers that turn the warning into an exception also get a note about the soon-to-be change. WDYT? Nicolas --000000000000c829c505d89bab42--