Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79687
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <548FB2E4.2030608@gmail.com>
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>
	<548DC988.6030108@gmail.com>
	<C8233821-4093-4732-A5A0-2D99E5DBAFA1@thesba.com>
	<548E84D1.9030401@gmail.com>
	<94025CC8-8A1A-4A28-BD7B-9E122CAD31FB@thesba.com>
	<548FB2E4.2030608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:50:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzcCPPZ+79QQFx1VBU__3L_kxRuZiHmGsUmnEkgU9fRZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leon Sorokin <leeoniya@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>, Robert Williams <rewilliams@thesba.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228b60c3446f050a4eef1c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fix incorrect ternary '?' associativity for 7.0?
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--089e01228b60c3446f050a4eef1c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Leon Sorokin <leeoniya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
>
>> What world is this that you live in where every line of code that=E2=80=
=99s
>> written is fully unit-tested
>>
>
> You took my example too literally; forget the unit tests. Imagine the
> situation differently:
>
> 1. Someone wrote this function:
>
> function add_five_pct($num) {
>   return $num * 1.10;
> }
>
> 2. This function was then used to calculate profit margin and display
> retail prices on your site and business has been great! Unknowingly, you'=
ve
> been making 2x what was intended with no ill effects!
>
> 3. A new hire then went through this code on his own accord and decided,
> 'wait, this function is a bug!' and took it upon himself to fix it to '$n=
um
> * 1.05'.
>
> Would you say the e-commerce site has been 'fixed' to work correctly?
> Should the dev be praised for fixing the clearly broken function without
> consulting anyone?
>
> I cannot come up with a clearer explanation of how a 'silent' code fix ca=
n
> foul up the bigger picture in non-beneficial ways. That's the scenario
> that's being discussed here. The main point of contention is, no one know=
s
> how much code exists in the wild that uses and relies on this misbehavior=
.
> My argument is 'negligible', others say it's 'non-negligible'. And the
> whole comedy is, no one can actually provide definitive numbers since
> nobody will ever know but a tiny portion of all source code that is out
> there, so all arguments stem from 'meta' evidence and personal experience=
.
>
>
> --
> Leon Sorokin
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Precisely why I suggested we do a poll and find out.  Polling is a valid
means of getting a reasonable accounting of a particular metric.  If we use
a sufficiently diverse and representative sample, we should easily be able
to get accurate enough results to settle this question once and for all.
The only cost is effort.

--Kris

--089e01228b60c3446f050a4eef1c--