Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120393 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22831 invoked from network); 23 May 2023 20:26:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 23 May 2023 20:26:59 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFA01804BC for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 13:26:59 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS24940 176.9.0.0/16 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from chrono.xqk7.com (chrono.xqk7.com [176.9.45.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 23 May 2023 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bastelstu.be; s=mail20171119; t=1684873616; bh=7Ws7XokJ8zFn+Bznlf7FEXoZJDjc+YCysI5RlFzenfk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:from:to:cc:subject:message-id; b=OGK1izxA3Pb+hOe/tOxLcXG0uE9W5Tp4n46FbU+3WWsokK/aqew8VjKQOmOVj0MnO ViC4aZHHwqNvlLo8dBFp+i8Eaqiu8T394o+pSuX/bb1u6bjsB1Uo2MovRQ4iERS+QG udIn1kh22toE8swEd1ITakR4sOpjzGRAheF1L+l+HUNL2XCOH+5+BuQqFVOjwoeL+5 DiJqY40ttbZXcgo2T5YzU/ugYMpHKzo3ahDvv47MwEI+FqCzKjVW6VSDOJvL8APxwI Aqz3b5Hz1ICG3OtjkZHphcdhMDlN6p5fPNP1yAEselQg6yP1dlBWWMLafSs6rW2C8i CRcL+y0zZJPUg== Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 22:26:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC [Discussion]: Marking overridden methods (#[\Override]) From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus?=) Hi On 5/22/23 23:32, David Gebler wrote: > whether there's an appetite out there in general to start adding all sorts > of new runtime checks, which I would argue means any new runtime check > warrants the utmost consideration of cost-benefit. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding I'd like to clarify that the proposed check of this RFC is not a runtime error. It's a compile time error, just like the check for incompatible method signatures during inheritance. In fact it shares a non-trivial amount of the existing logic of that check, because it's so similar. My understanding is that once the class is successfully sitting in Opcache there will not be any further overhead. ------ With regard to the rest of the email, I (naturally?) disagree that this should not be part of the language itself. I currently have less time available than expected, I'll put the email back on unread and hope to be able to give a more expanded and nuanced reply later. I just wanted to get the first part with regard to runtime vs. compile time out for now. Best regards Tim Düsterhus