Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124540
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:58:13 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_Request_for_opinions=3A_bug_vs_f?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?eature_-_change_intokenization_of_yield_from?=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CADK1yXJyM+fKeT9wyAEn-uGNOuYERp-tT2APhT1sc1hhN8QQQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66984FD0.5090805@adviesenzo.nl> <AM8P250MB0170FFCA0014FB9EC272DB4FE2AC2@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <c9736385-94b7-4064-911f-e5fc1df7e2bd@gmx.de> <AM8P250MB0170B4C59B4313A565CD029AE2AC2@AM8P250MB0170.EURP250.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <6699F817.8070806@adviesenzo.nl> <9571bb82-9873-4319-9bd1-0361748335be@bastelstu.be> <669BDB00.70507@adviesenzo.nl> <fa7db246-1577-43b7-a117-c18a73140091@bastelstu.be> <669BE870.2050908@adviesenzo.nl> <b7b47e7a-fc20-4774-bc49-fff271386504@bastelstu.be> <CADK1yXK4bapqAWLZLNk--Fvo87AOv2qbSM1mTn23gU1JSMcL_g@mail.gmail.com> <86eef5d8-6ffc-45e0-8ed6-6201a414cfb7@bastelstu.be> <2C00EB00-0BA4-40F8-92A5-50B49A639AD6@rwec.co.uk> <CADK1yXJyM+fKeT9wyAEn-uGNOuYERp-tT2APhT1sc1hhN8QQQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3400958-0404-4632-BBD7-859E1FC4BA4B@rwec.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")



On 21 July 2024 17:45:27 BST, Deleu <deleugyn@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:
>I don't agree with the sentiment of "given the 2 options
>available, we prefer the option where we know we are negatively impacting
>community members consuming token_get_all() in favor of protecting
>imaginary PHP users that would have been adventurous enough to make use o=
f
>comments between `yield` and `from`=2E"


I understand what you're saying, but I think there are more than two group=
s of people, and more than two options:=20

As well as users who have already made use of the feature, we are implicit=
ly talking about users who will use it in future=2E If nobody ever wants to=
 use it, then it makes no difference if we revert or not, and no difference=
 if CodeSniffer can support it or not=2E If they do want to use it, and we =
revert, they suffer=2E If they want to use it, and use CodeSniffer, then th=
ey will suffer if CodeSniffer decides it cannot be sensibly handled=2E Bob'=
s proposed alternative implementation *might* mean that these users get eve=
rything they want (if JRF and others say they can consume that token stream=
)=2E

On the other hand, Bob's proposal affects a different set of users: those =
whose code contains "parse from" *without* extra comments, which will now e=
mit two tokens instead of one=2E They will suffer if tools are not updated =
to handle this change=2E=20

Reverting now, and *later* implementing the feature a different way will i=
mpact multiple of these groups, just at different times=2E

Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]