Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124513
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-568-g843fbadbe-fm-20240701.003-g843fbadb
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9fd143d3-920a-4865-b425-ebf852ef54b9@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B60F1C13-EAE1-4570-9374-8B428E3DADBE@gmail.com>
References: <237f2004-92dd-46e5-9946-91b8c8d97166@bastelstu.be>
 <B60F1C13-EAE1-4570-9374-8B428E3DADBE@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:50:09 +0200
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Marco_Aur=C3=A9lio_Deleu?= <deleugyn@gmail.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>,
 "Juliette Reinders Folmer" <php-internals_nospam@adviesenzo.nl>,
 "PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Request for opinions: bug vs feature - change intokenization of
 yield from
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=151044dcc81a4d8d8a9230b1938e25e6
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--151044dcc81a4d8d8a9230b1938e25e6
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 16:35, Marco Aur=C3=A9lio Deleu wrote:
>=20
> > On 20 Jul 2024, at 11:30, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrot=
e:
> >=20
> > =EF=BB=BFHi
> >=20
> >> On 7/19/24 00:51, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> >> And frankly, how much code would be affected?  I mean, does anybody
> >> actually put a comment between `yield` and `from`?  Is there a case
> >> where this may make sense?  "Because we can" isn't a strong argumen=
t, in
> >> my opinion.
> >=20
> > I don't really follow this line of argumentation:
> >=20
> > If folks do not use the syntax anyways, then we do not need to have =
this discussion, because the tools can just ignore it existing. That als=
o means we do not need to revert the change in PHP.
> >=20
> > If folks use the syntax, then reverting the change is a breaking cha=
nge for them.
> >=20
> > So either the revert is not doing anything at all, or the revert is =
actively harmful. I do not see a situation where reverting the change is=
 a value-add.
> >=20
> > Best regards
> > Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
>=20
> The value add of the revert is because time is a moving target. We don=
't think anyone is using it _yet_, given the circumstances that made thi=
s happen. Wait long enough and the only guarantee we have is entropy.

Even if people are using it, if fixing it is better than leaving it=E2=80=
=A6 Oh well.=20

A perfect example is the GMP class being left not =E2=80=9Cfinal=E2=80=9D=
 that allows for some really nice semantics. It=E2=80=99s currently bein=
g voted on and it appears an unanimous vote to make it final will pass.

The language can and will change. Sometimes in ways we don=E2=80=99t lik=
e.=20

=E2=80=94 Rob
--151044dcc81a4d8d8a9230b1938e25e6
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 16:35, Marco Aur=C3=A9lio Deleu =
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div><br>=
</div><div>&gt; On 20 Jul 2024, at 11:30, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tim@bastelstu.be">tim@bastelstu.be</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><d=
iv>&gt;&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; =EF=BB=BFHi<br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;<br=
></div><div>&gt;&gt; On 7/19/24 00:51, Christoph M. Becker wrote:<br></d=
iv><div>&gt;&gt; And frankly, how much code would be affected?&nbsp; I m=
ean, does anybody<br></div><div>&gt;&gt; actually put a comment between =
`yield` and `from`?&nbsp; Is there a case<br></div><div>&gt;&gt; where t=
his may make sense?&nbsp; "Because we can" isn't a strong argument, in<b=
r></div><div>&gt;&gt; my opinion.<br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;<br></div><div=
>&gt; I don't really follow this line of argumentation:<br></div><div>&g=
t;&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; If folks do not use the syntax anyways, then=
 we do not need to have this discussion, because the tools can just igno=
re it existing. That also means we do not need to revert the change in P=
HP.<br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; If folks use the syntax,=
 then reverting the change is a breaking change for them.<br></div><div>=
&gt;&nbsp;<br></div><div>&gt; So either the revert is not doing anything=
 at all, or the revert is actively harmful. I do not see a situation whe=
re reverting the change is a value-add.<br></div><div>&gt;&nbsp;<br></di=
v><div>&gt; Best regards<br></div><div>&gt; Tim D=C3=BCsterhus<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>The value add of the revert is because time is a mov=
ing target. We don't think anyone is using it _yet_, given the circumsta=
nces that made this happen. Wait long enough and the only guarantee we h=
ave is entropy.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Even if people=
 are using it, if fixing it is better than leaving it=E2=80=A6 Oh well. =
<br></div><div><br></div><div>A perfect example is the GMP class being l=
eft not =E2=80=9Cfinal=E2=80=9D that allows for some really nice semanti=
cs. It=E2=80=99s currently being voted on and it appears an unanimous vo=
te to make it final will pass.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The language=
 can and will change. Sometimes in ways we don=E2=80=99t like.&nbsp;</di=
v><div><br></div><div id=3D"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></body>=
</html>
--151044dcc81a4d8d8a9230b1938e25e6--