Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125142
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.8\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Concept] Flip relative function lookup order (global,
 then local)
In-Reply-To: <64406CFC-D844-46D9-BC08-BCD405D7BB53@cschneid.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 09:44:39 -0400
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6AB19E9E-BD7F-4C5C-A2E0-82EAAD922031@newclarity.net>
References: <CAPyj-LCoBY2bPHLmsyONYDbY9aRSraLz5QNskeTiWfpMD0pTSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <c385b525-37f7-446b-aa96-72272ef9e407@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LA4kTJTrQZUkn9kNMvWdH6SsFGU5mBO6EcpuUcRpXesgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4b18a48-93b0-49c8-821d-f9298e831188@rwec.co.uk>
 <BD6D644E-A90C-49B8-B51A-C9D4C943FDF6@newclarity.net>
 <846D7756-712B-4A7C-9FC6-DB9F858836B8@rwec.co.uk>
 <880ffc27dc9b421407a670c75d5f5ba756870396.camel@ageofdream.com>
 <790534cd-e158-4712-878c-642dfd0e2bad@app.fastmail.com>
 <a0db04a7fa1d9c77b9d2b0110b50a47ef959e98f.camel@ageofdream.com>
 <d26516d7-afaa-4174-81f0-361785908967@app.fastmail.com>
 <d8bf24792d307d07863176772fbf35ec701b6b4b.camel@ageofdream.com>
 <63F3CFAA-0D9A-4323-A1A4-0E3544281ECE@cschneid.com>
 <b44a775b-c264-4d36-b7ff-7075b8d5dbaf@app.fastmail.com>
 <64406CFC-D844-46D9-BC08-BCD405D7BB53@cschneid.com>
To: Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Aug 23, 2024, at 8:56 AM, Christian Schneider =
<cschneid@cschneid.com> wrote:
>=20
> Am 23.08.2024 um 12:27 schrieb Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>:
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024, at 12:14, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2024 um 11:34 schrieb Nick Lockheart =
<lists@ageofdream.com>:
>>>> I think we are all trying to achieve the same thing here.
>>>=20
>>> I'm not sure who "we" and what "same thing" here exactly is.
>>=20
>> Nick was replying to me :p, judging by the quoted paragraph.
>=20
> The "all" in his sentence suggested to me that he means more than him =
and you.
> But then again I might have misinterpreted this.
>=20
>> As far as function overloading goes, I recommend checking out a draft =
RFC I've been working on a very, very long time: =
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/records. In some off-list discussions, it was =
clear that if I wanted this syntax, I would need to pursue function =
autoloading.
>=20
> Definitely an interesting read, thanks a lot for the work you put into =
it!
>=20
>> Further, function autoloading is a clearly missing feature that would =
be useful in many situations.
>=20
> The "clearly missing" and "many" part is where I disagree. But I was =
mainly considering current PHP, not future PHP syntax like the Records =
stuff, agreed.
>=20
>> If function autoloading doesn't work out, I will need to take a =
different approach to that syntax (which is fine, but not something I =
want because I chose the syntax for a very good reason).
>=20
> I know you do not want to discuss this here as it is off-topic but it =
kind of feels the only advantage is to get rid of "new" in the usage of =
Records. But I'll leave it at that as to per your request, we can =
revisit that once the RFC hits the discussion stage.
>=20
>> That being said, I'm not ready to discuss records here, so this is =
the first and last time I'll mention it on the thread. There is a Reddit =
post in r/php and a GitHub repo if you are interested in discussing =
records. There are very many things to work out still, and it is very =
much work-in-progress.
>=20
> Also a bit off-topic but I still have to mention it, maybe worth =
another thread:
> I understand where you are coming from but at the same time it feels a =
bit worrying to me to use another medium (reddit) for a discussion about =
future language features when we have this mailing list.
>=20
> I hope this won't mean that questions/suggestions/concerns on this =
mailing list won't be discredited because of discussions which happened =
elsewhere. I'm sorry if I sound a bit paranoid here but I've been in =
this situation before in other (not software related) aspects of my life =
before where I was told that something was already decided and people =
were not willing to go back on certain issues because of that.

FWIW, Rob asked me to review his ideas in email and I pushed him to open =
up a repo so that discussions could be captured and made public rather =
than lost to the ethers of private email.

The problem with discussing everything on the list from minute one is =
that the list has a habit of punishing those who bring ideas that are =
not fully-baked. It is very hard to brainstorm anything on the list =
without getting shot down by those who expect everything discussed on =
the list to already be fully fleshed out. =20

Better to get a group of motivated individuals who all want to see a =
related RFC succeed and get them to work through the issues enough that =
when (and if) it is brought to the list there will not be obvious =
negative arguments against it to nip it in the bud when it otherwise =
could be something worthwhile.

Also, whereas only discussion happens on the list, in a repo you can =
actually start writing a potential implementation and crafting an =
eventual RFC, so it has the potential to be more productive. Finally, =
the list is the gatekeeper anyway, so if things are already decided that =
the list disagrees with, it still won't pass.=20

So, if you feel you are a stakeholder on this idea, I'd suggest =
celebrating the idea of a repo and joining the discussion there.=20

-Mike

P.S. As for using Reddit, I'm not as big of that as its has its own =
culture that can be just a difficult to incubate ideas as here on this =
list.=