Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120260
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPzBOBPQzV=EfYgWL50-mEkjjDOua1brbLyNJ3T89Og+HuUkfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPzBOBPQzV=EfYgWL50-mEkjjDOua1brbLyNJ3T89Og+HuUkfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 14:10:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuT4S9aGfGpxLSaiR3x9hUiZ_N=EbEDh=fYDvdacjkE7cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] nameof
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On Sat, 13 May 2023 at 08:27, Robert Landers <landers.robert@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> Hello Internals,
>
> It is with much trepidation and excitement that I'd like to announce
> the `nameof` RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nameof).

Can you provide more details on what the error conditions are? I can
see 'non-existent static variable' and 'non-existent variable', are
there others?

> An exception model was considered, however, the author believes that
> it would break the concept of =E2=80=9Cusing nameof wherever a string cou=
ld
> be used=E2=80=9D and wouldn't be practical for the engine to handle all o=
f
> those cases.

Can you put some detail in there ....I don't understand the problem,
or what you mean by it not being practical to 'handle all of those
cases' .

> each one has its own merits but ultimately will
> be left up as a secondary vote:

One of the reasons the RFC process has served PHP pretty well is that
it forces people to think through the details.

I really don't think putting a few options up and hoping that people
choose the best one is a good way to design a language; it allows
skipping over thinking the details through.

And yeah....this is one of the reason doing RFCs is annoying. People
are often persnickety over details.

cheers
Dan
Ack