Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124557
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-582-g5a02f8850-fm-20240719.002-g5a02f885
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ffd507a4-7f8d-4e3d-a477-e59c96b582ba@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJp_myW1cGAZT-183cKTEQus1G3KJiW2vHx6GtdYP78pZc1evQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <USzt7tZZlO1DmAbSTLhD-bqa23FqZn0zk2aah8Ndxgk9c7RY5PefQ8MjbYPUYAzr2_m4Cf-5AI4PuNBTS84rim_FNS6RaT-cWSv714HEvvU=@gpb.moe>
 <CAJp_myW1cGAZT-183cKTEQus1G3KJiW2vHx6GtdYP78pZc1evQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 14:04:18 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecations for PHP 8.4
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, at 1:42 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:41=E2=80=AFPM Gina P. Banyard <internals@gp=
b.moe> wrote:
>> Hello internals,
>>=20
>> I have opened the vote for the mega deprecation RFC:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecations_php_8_4
>>=20
>> Reminder, each vote must be submitted individually.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Best regards,
>>=20
>>=20
>> Gina P. Banyard
>
>
> The section "Deprecate using a single underscore ''_'' as a class name=
"=20
> indicates that probably the primary reason to deprecate it is a=20
> potential future conflict in the pattern matching RFC, where it can be=20
> used as a wildcard.
>
> However, I see no mention of this character as a wildcard anywhere in =
that RFC.
>
> Can somebody clarify?

The pattern matching RFC previously listed _ as a wildcard character.

In the discussion a month ago, someone pointed out that `mixed` already =
serves that exact purpose, so having an extra wildcard was removed.

However, a few people indicated a desire to have an explicit wildcard _ =
anyway, even if it's redundant, as it's a more common and standard appro=
ach in other languages.  We've indicated that we are open to making that=
 an optional secondary vote in the pattern matching RFC if there's enoug=
h interest (it would be trivial), though I haven't bothered to add it to=
 the RFC text yet.

Having _ available could also be used in other "wildcard" or "ignore thi=
s" cases, like exploding into a list assignment or similar, though I don=
't believe that has been fully explored.

That's the context/background here.  Whether that encourages you to vote=
 for or against that section I leave as an exercise for the reader.

--Larry Garfield