Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117348 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47379 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2022 09:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2022 09:35:38 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0890918053C for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 04:00:36 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS1836 195.49.0.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from darkcity.gna.ch (darkcity.gna.ch [195.49.47.11]) (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, 16 Mar 2022 04:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:1210:2ea4:cf00:100c:d908:fc69:af84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by darkcity.gna.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FE951516681 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:00:32 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\)) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 12:00:32 +0100 References: <4724184.31r3eYUQgx@come-prox15amd> <37421f61-4e2e-53d3-56d0-022a3c21ed2e@gmx.de> <4f8bad56-267a-9279-1e57-66fd10b8874f@gmail.com> <6230f8bf.1c69fb81.b1e54.162dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <43EC1ECF-3E73-4A32-A9FE-056B619B4A6B@cschneid.com> To: PHP internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Undefined Variable Error Promotion From: cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) Am 16.03.2022 um 11:39 schrieb Mark Randall : > On 16/03/2022 09:17, Christian Schneider wrote: >> Maybe we should ask ourselves the question: Why would the entire = package be blocked? Just because it is too big or maybe there *are* = subtleties which have not been properly resolved? >=20 > It's politics and the practicalities of getting things done. A nice description of salami slicing tactics ;-) > An all-or-nothing approach will inevitably end up with nothing, = because those who are opposed on principle need only rally around = attacking the weakest element, without the need to address any of the = other parts which might individually be much stronger. >=20 > That's not to say that the weakest elements shouldn't be debated, they = should. >=20 > But we shouldn't sabotage ourselves, and bring about a state of = permanent project paralysis, by mandating that semi-related weaker = changes are bundled with stronger ones and must be voted on as a whole. >=20 > It would just open the door to the constant use of a poison pill = argument. The problem is you are saying "the weakest should be debated but not = right now, let's move forward anyway" and you are also stipulating that = the changes are only semi-related. By doing that you're dismissing Patrick's notion that they are more = closely related than you acknowledge because he's saying having = inconsistent handling of undefined stuff is also a WTF. And at the same time I really hope once we start discussing undefined = array indices you won't bring up consistency with undefined variables = (and possibly object properties) as the reason to change it. That would = feel weird given that you want to treat them as separate issues right = now ;-) - Chris