Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76467
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.207 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAH-PCH4t1bnGwOmitU4cS4W--==8sZRhw1X-DkV0Y7zNj8E3kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:42:30 +0100
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <942D2AF6-BDC2-4214-BD58-4B5945C28CE3@ajf.me>
References: <CAESVnVr0J5qyAc-L0Yt_3Ahab5LVgtUErgoKsSPvgwe=QzppTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH4t1bnGwOmitU4cS4W--==8sZRhw1X-DkV0Y7zNj8E3kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>,
 James <james@notjam.es>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Disallow multiple default blocks in a single switch statement
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi!

On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:

> and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant =
a BC
> break (albeit this is the better kind of BC: probably doesn't effect =
too
> many people, and they will be clearly notified about the error at =
compile
> time) so I voted no based on this two thing.

This isn=92t really a BC break. Multiple default blocks didn=92t =
actually work anyway, we just silently ignored extra ones.

On 13 Aug 2014, at 09:13, James <james@notjam.es> wrote:

> I entirely believe this behavior is weird and should be removed. =
However,
> breaking backwards
> compatibility in a minor release because the incomplete spec says so =
is
> kind of odd.  A BC break
> is a BC break, which doesn't belong in a minor revision.

It isn=92t a BC break that will affect anyone. It fixes a parser bug.

> This has been known to at least one person for many years if 034.phpt =
is to
> be believed.

Just because it=92s tested doesn=92t mean anyone relies on it. We have =
plenty of tests which ensure PHP contains bugs and will error if they =
don=92t.

> I could see
> where people would use it - there are reasons to, even if they are =
poor in
> choice to do so.

How, exactly, could there ever be a use for having multiple default: =
sections and ignoring all but one? This =93feature=94 is completely and =
utterly useless, and I=92ll eat my hat if anyone intentionally relied on =
it.

Thanks!!

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/