Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74834 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45901 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2014 23:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jun 2014 23:09:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.67 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.67 smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.67] ([108.166.43.67:59280] helo=smtp67.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 92/92-42235-A1097935 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:09:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp9.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B6B9C2807A5; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:09:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp9.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 549FE280456; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53979016.2030500@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:09:10 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye , Nikita Popov CC: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [PHP 6] Uniform Variable Syntax From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > If accepted, it would be a good thing to add notices in 5.6 as well, > if it does not impact performance too much. I wouldn't be that fast with it, since notices are very expensive (compared to regular opcodes), and disabling them via error_level does nothing to mitigate that effect, and may easily lead to breakage in systems which have custom handlers - like unit tests, monitoring, etc. When we're going to 6, it's good to break things we want to change. When we're talking about 5.6, less disruption to existing working code the better. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227