Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79634
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
References: <B6.00.14066.691CC845@pb1.pair.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1412132316440.4080@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAFMT4NpeOuZyHk24iwSV866qXjnRg0z3Y35GX+e+PYEuXZHpmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <548D494B.8010901@gmail.com> <CAFKLSKBh+yjXoBSqR9bpmi1tUfsOWNMj1QLZR5Hqz2A+R1mvzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B7F5188C-25C2-42FD-97F8-9AF58BC44CAC@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <B7F5188C-25C2-42FD-97F8-9AF58BC44CAC@ajf.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Thread-Index: AQE6tiVlTJfB1hLdfs9KahE1aOY9OgHTX6XUAYBlPP4CuImFZgHchb58AePvCzGda2q1YA==
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:06:10 +0200
Message-ID: <b1ec0e643824d7da791af8e63722431e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, George Bond <happy.melon.wiki+gb@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Fix incorrect ternary '?' associativity for 7.0?
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:ajf@ajf.me]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:26 PM
> To: George Bond
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fix incorrect ternary '?' associativity for 7.0?
>
>
> > On 14 Dec 2014, at 12:01, George Bond
> <happy.melon.wiki+gb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you wanted an upgrade path that was not Evil (in the sense of not
> > introducing subtle and hard-to-diagnose bugs), could you not change
> > the operator to be *un*associative in PHP7?  That would effectively
> > just make concrete the discouragement/deprecation that's already in
> > the documentation, and would produce irritating but very visible
> > errors for anyone still actually using this functionality, as well as
> > making them alter their code in a forward-compatible way.  Then if you
> > want to think really long term, plan to implement the 'correct'
> > associativity in the
> > *next* major version.
>
> Hey George,
>
> That sounds like a good approach, actually, although I'm not sure about
later
> fixing the associativity. If we make it non-associative this does break
things,
> but very loudly rather than changing code's behaviour. I think we should
do
> this.

Although my inclination would be not to change anything, I agree that if
we do decide to change it, George's idea is the best approach.

Zeev