Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:125165
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:41:41 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_=5BConcept=5D_Flip_relative_fu?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?nction_lookup_order_=28global=2C_then_local=29?=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAPyj-LDCdo+UE0W1q6LOAVHrt6mVmGft9K4mBDvjkBWR3TT4kA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21D6F160-5EAE-44FA-907B-E1DAAC1B8D75@rwec.co.uk> <53BD062A-4D7F-4E5D-852E-6D27641213A8@koalephant.com> <f32382b4-3bee-47ab-88ed-ad2ab154c319@app.fastmail.com> <7607FD64-5572-466E-9866-63C2536B2A09@koalephant.com> <0d269a38-28fe-494c-a903-50022e09f27b@app.fastmail.com> <E848530A-038F-40E0-A87D-D0C823C5E967@koalephant.com> <63DAE337-B117-4380-8735-186DC30FE0B7@rwec.co.uk> <CAPyj-LDCdo+UE0W1q6LOAVHrt6mVmGft9K4mBDvjkBWR3TT4kA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <977227E3-8793-4FB1-B572-B75D27C06ED5@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 23 August 2024 18:32:41 BST, Ilija Tovilo <tovilo=2Eilija@gmail=2Ecom> =
wrote:
>IMO, 1=2E is too drastic=2E As people have mentioned, there are tools to
>automate disambiguation=2E But unless we gain some other benefit from
>dropping the lookup entirely, why do it?

I can think of a few disadvantages of "global first":

- Fewer code bases will be affected, but working out which ones is harder=
=2E The easiest migration will probably be to make sure all calls to namesp=
aced functions are fully qualified, as though it was "global only"=2E
- Even after the initial migration, users will have to watch out for new c=
onflicting global functions=2E Again, this can be avoided by just pretendin=
g it's "global only"=2E=20
- The engine won't be able to optimise calls where the name exists locally=
 but not globally, because a userland global function could be defined at a=
ny time=2E
- Unlike with the current way around, there's unlikely to be a use case fo=
r shadowing a namespaced name with a global one; it will just be a gotcha t=
hat trips people up occasionally=2E

None of these seem like showstoppers to me, but since we can so easily go =
one step further to "global only", and avoid them, why wouldn't we?=20

Your answer to that seems to be that you think "global only" is a bigger B=
C break, but I wonder how much difference it really makes=2E As in, how man=
y codebases are using unqualified calls to reference a namespaced function,=
 but *not* shadowing a global name?

Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]