Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120383 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76950 invoked from network); 22 May 2023 12:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 May 2023 12:01:54 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61760180083 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 05:01:53 -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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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-ed1-f48.google.com (mail-ed1-f48.google.com [209.85.208.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 05:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50be17a1eceso10742570a12.2 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 05:01:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=basereality-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1684756911; x=1687348911; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DTFotHj3jlAGRRBgOw44+e1t0F4C4c+GpIItk1GFlpY=; b=YLJtQW4sZmqU4SaG+92i/lcYmcRFHxNDi46y9q+tj9FU6p1KTGStgs1MSvmr8gVtJR /pAUl6wlRwcZtL4wi0rJxe79I5VY7MvkERAn3bL0fs61yDmnPwDnDQKS0OINmW7RcLT1 ooxYrF6FGRX/JyeR5zAXyWasVyokgN0W9yIexdpbOVFwb8d8AXH1OG5ktX2FpYBoZRpQ icdKuGNS7QriRoEc4vtj26TIYsfma2nTTU1y7CB3QJLoEEEsgZkKue7zxNW/lL/mKzlf G9tw6msPp0z9NXDSEwhV/oWiv6KyH5GvmIQ785NwS2SoOQxXAh0U5SgLzIQC8p86e4wl wWFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684756911; x=1687348911; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=DTFotHj3jlAGRRBgOw44+e1t0F4C4c+GpIItk1GFlpY=; b=AkJ2bMRAceAnwwNR4v4eRR9TUK0WB36X4+FBpJKMV6Pga1p0lhJcPTYwOEzE+f7Ipt ruUatAorcMSDbTvd911yp+l2eCfDQpTIOPAaAqVvRzcbLreaZnl4jxVERK6w5LLJl1S0 DwAjZG+mdfGB7q/uZ4B+F63Q16r6d+Mon8PphRkTD3bT8Ca8nF8gCQ4vD0MEYa/iaqR0 fjG2zS8C04GB5OVJ64plHlNfPMlgS/o2IU4rvuBiOX9fz6AivizYwwnAezdZvU5v2+ZQ 2NvqOT4WbDeCCMDQiOulOel9Pqf1Au4nbwMcOALgc4adU8/Itc9FtN/8jjawKhHf1Hfh ozeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDz88nAwX7hbEBI8w8M3N+W3R04rF5oWYWc09zZ6BbEAwob8i63d Mr5W/aNCIxVCXPv7nJPqxr1cmCVEjMChIhoOnF4FTD+XZtLSzegO4uI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6Gx5XX2SNeSNHCOzngRlNoNpIvpr9IAFXRI9YVYhdx+DbT2KMDnT03+nRXoO60AHowPfQWWqZS6UOyGt5CuBw= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d146:0:b0:50b:cadd:21e6 with SMTP id r6-20020aa7d146000000b0050bcadd21e6mr9259431edo.8.1684756911551; Mon, 22 May 2023 05:01:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 13:01:40 +0100 Message-ID: To: David Gebler Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Marking overridden methods (#[\Override]) From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd) On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 18:58, David Gebler wrote: > > this is exactly the kind of check which you would > expect to be done at the static analysis stage Even for those who use static analysis, most (afaik) don't have it running constantly in local development and this RFC would prevent people wondering why their code is behaving surprisingly before it is static analysed. Also, not everyone uses static analysis tools. cheers Dan Ack