Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124751
Message-ID: <a97242032874e73480c2883e23745a1691ff261a.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 14:39:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LDhFFv=B-324YZDUv8BdV8npj6npLn9jxv3reA9SoGjqw@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>
	 <5f1da5195e2aea7ec41e95ff4354f50b1717d3cf.camel@ageofdream.com>
	 <CAPyj-LDhFFv=B-324YZDUv8BdV8npj6npLn9jxv3reA9SoGjqw@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)


>=20
> But that's not quite what the RFC says:
>=20
> > I am asking that we discuss and vote on the following question:
> >=20
> > =E2=80=9CShould there be some way for developers to signal to the parse=
r at
> > compile time that all unqualified function names found in a
> > namespace context are global, without a namespace lookup?=E2=80=9D
>=20
> Which implies:
>=20
> 1. There is _some_ change to syntax.
> 2. All unqualified calls become global.

I did not intend for all unqualified calls to become global, unless the
new directive is present.

There would be some new syntax for the directive, but behavior would
remain unchanged without a new directive present.

The issue is, when a question asks: "Should we do thing Y with syntax
X", and the vote is only yes/no, then you have:

Yes.
No, because I don't think we should do it at all.
No, because I don't like the syntax.

But you can't tell the "no" votes apart.

If the people who are allowed to vote are opposed to the idea, for
whatever reason, extended syntax discussions aren't going to be a good
use of time.=20

So I wanted to ask, "Will you do it if we can agree on a syntax?".

Then if they will, we can discuss.

I actually have several ideas in mind for things that aren't
necessarily mutually exclusive, but I need to know that core is willing
to consider/implement along these lines.

What I'm trying to get out of this RFC is a clear yes or no from the
people who are allowed to vote.