Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124741
Message-ID: <5f1da5195e2aea7ec41e95ff4354f50b1717d3cf.camel@ageofdream.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Add Directive to Make All Namespaced Function
 Calls Global
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 13:29:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LD02XrZ4F6ZqG0PNLrrfekBHiiz+S24v5nv_9xgW4UKUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<USzt7tZZlO1DmAbSTLhD-bqa23FqZn0zk2aah8Ndxgk9c7RY5PefQ8MjbYPUYAzr2_m4Cf-5AI4PuNBTS84rim_FNS6RaT-cWSv714HEvvU=@gpb.moe>
	 <1a88918e-e808-d778-45e1-53797660e093@php.net>
	 <CAPrKfG5Cw_nU7g7FR+t4C1-YZ8CDsDO_-sRs=yEsHO5kCTZL+A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c03eb187-bd21-4a4b-9faf-8d0243eaa994@varteg.nz>
	 <aa6bc7aa-28d9-40ca-974f-65075adb6199@rwec.co.uk>
	 <3563cf9b-8eab-4c82-b525-a5d2f9a767bb@varteg.nz>
	 <38920A4B-790D-48C7-B2F6-C49D3F506232@rwec.co.uk>
	 <0824789d-0e36-4628-85c1-4b8d9b7f86af@varteg.nz>
	 <ab8c974a-c31c-4ff6-974d-0a8c962d5e22@app.fastmail.com>
	 <2244a37f-8c51-448d-8a56-329ff32e6470@bastelstu.be>
	 <AE6EAAFA-3E8F-4B7C-877F-D84FBA8178C5@newclarity.net>
	 <fc46131c-9f12-4601-b197-f4d66b79f2f8@varteg.nz>
	 <D748C182-20C0-4BE4-859E-FBE86BB93524@newclarity.net>
	 <0e1a21ddef3c7da17a3539b92d5f442763f4b1f8.camel@ageofdream.com>
	 <CAPyj-LD02XrZ4F6ZqG0PNLrrfekBHiiz+S24v5nv_9xgW4UKUg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: lists@ageofdream.com (Nick Lockheart)

On Sun, 2024-08-04 at 19:15 +0200, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Hi Nick
>=20
> I find it a bit unfortunate that you gave my thread barely any time
> to
> be discussed.
>=20

My intent was to start a formal discussion on this very topic.


> This can be achieved in various ways. For example:
>=20
> * Per-file, via declare(), new use syntax, or whatnot.
> * Globally, through an INI setting.
> * Via hard cut in a new PHP version, where a relative calls just stop
> looking up local scope.
> * By flipping lookup order, as proposed in my last thread.
>=20
> One might be in favor of one approach but not others. Of course,
> everybody will be in favor of a "free" 2-4% speedup. Hence, a yes
> vote
> won't mean much.
>=20
> Ilija

From reviewing past RFCs over the past few weeks, I think the issue was
too big and went in too many different directions to get consensus.

So I thought the best approach would be to break it into different
parts.

If no one wants to implement this feature, it doesn't matter how or at
what level.

So I wanted to get a "yes" from the people who need to say yes, then
discuss all of those things you mentioned:

1. File level vs global
2. Syntax
3. Alternative options

But I think we need a "yes" for the concept first. Otherwise the vote
will fail on the details, as they have in the past.