Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76471
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B83858AC-CE12-4F90-9F7C-71EAD69DD6AD@ajf.me>
References: <CAESVnVr0J5qyAc-L0Yt_3Ahab5LVgtUErgoKsSPvgwe=QzppTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH-PCH4t1bnGwOmitU4cS4W--==8sZRhw1X-DkV0Y7zNj8E3kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <942D2AF6-BDC2-4214-BD58-4B5945C28CE3@ajf.me> <CAEZPtU4k95KFAs0sf04KK6ASJz_U0Zk7jTTAVcrwMO7MTnouPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B83858AC-CE12-4F90-9F7C-71EAD69DD6AD@ajf.me>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:24:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPg3XxLsdb8gZPOkhOmQcdpfx_b7d-jK1r6Fn9Fmki1yCmaz6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, James <james@notjam.es>, 
	Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2cc18e59f750500803382
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Disallow multiple default blocks in a single
 switch statement
From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn)

--001a11c2cc18e59f750500803382
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 13 August 2014 10:56, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:

>
> On 13 Aug 2014, at 10:52, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
> >
> >>> 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 =E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D is comp=
letely and utterly
> useless, and I=E2=80=99ll eat my hat if anyone intentionally relied on it=
.
> >
> > The question is more about how and when do we fix issues found while
> > working on the specs? That one is pretty easy and the impact for users
> > will be rather small, if at all.
> >
> > However, I tend to think that we should simply target php7 for any of
> > these fixes. No need of endless arguing and keeps everyone happy.
>
> I=E2=80=99d rather we fix these in 5.7, which I=E2=80=99m a proponent of =
and would come
> out sooner. This way we don=E2=80=99t have nonsenses like this specified =
for three
> years.
>

Since the spec is targeting 5.6 [citation needed], this behaviour will need
to be in there regardless of in what version it gets fixed.


> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/
>
>
>
My thoughts on the topic? I think we're in danger of letting "process" get
in our way here. It's a bug fix which IMHO should even be thrown into 5.6
 (this is a bug fix!). Going through the RFC process, being forced to wait
for 5.7 or 7, extended discussions on the list... it all just seems
unnecessary. But, that's just the opinion of a docs guy. :-)



>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

--001a11c2cc18e59f750500803382--