Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79819 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54084 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2014 22:51:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Dec 2014 22:51:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jwatzman@fb.com; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jwatzman@fb.com; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain fb.com does not designate 67.231.153.30 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jwatzman@fb.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.231.153.30 mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [67.231.153.30] ([67.231.153.30:18830] helo=mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id D1/30-49838-FDBA4945 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:51:11 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0004003 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id sBJMhwcd010880 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:51:08 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=facebook; bh=jSNKcL/wCmzLGloZRGsUTmhZY76y8jpmJ5fckFdvHm0=; b=L5X+btWdlClQCsXrRmrLEK60uUPLkb/LMkBPTdITFdCG36KmTVcTcded3CtBduO8Y1IN tXe3rNqcrOOHLWt3Iqo7jHo+OJrFrqgE3/TLRj7XyzPV3GOohlITCn+3qj9B+ZlQydPo FxcgjEE6sb08msp61+qOMjz2HXEHgt8N8a0= Received: from mail.thefacebook.com ([199.201.64.23]) by mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1rcuem8f0v-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:51:08 -0800 Received: from PRN-MBX02-2.TheFacebook.com ([169.254.5.125]) by PRN-CHUB16.TheFacebook.com ([fe80::7948:a494:45d7:3dd9%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:51:06 -0800 To: PHP internals Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls Thread-Index: AQHQFATxvp9RjOsogUO8aMy5/EMi+5yJh4YAgAAo4YCAANSUAIACV4MAgAs+JYA= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:51:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <95A581EE-A062-4926-BE44-BCA87FC9B356@fb.com> <000b01d01494$bb1c6520$31552f60$@tutteli.ch> <5489469A.2050100@gmail.com> <968B27C1-36DD-4B17-9A41-C7F1F5593B6C@fb.com> In-Reply-To: <968B27C1-36DD-4B17-9A41-C7F1F5593B6C@fb.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.16.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2BC198A518A8524FA9C766115B5CCD7C@fb.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-12-19_05:2014-12-19,2014-12-19,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=6.66133814775094e-16 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=15.112 compositescore=0.994924612563162 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.994924612563162 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=1889 rbsscore=0.994924612563162 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1412190225 X-FB-Internal: deliver Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullsafe calls From: jwatzman@fb.com (Josh Watzman) On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Josh Watzman wrote: > On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wr= ote: >=20 >>> the real-world code I've seen, it is the least confusing. (I'll see >>=20 >> Which real-world code you are talking about? Examples please. >=20 > I'm having trouble digging any up -- FB's codebase has >10k occurrences o= f this feature and I have yet to find a single one where the short circuit = matters or not -- so maybe my recollection and intuition here are just wron= g. I'll keep digging and thinking about this. Not convinced yet, but starti= ng to feel less strongly about it. I've moved the RFC back to draft while I think about this more. I've very q= uickly summarized what turns out to be at least *three* possibilities for t= his behavior in the "open issues" section of the RFC. I need to think throu= gh those ideas more, as well as investigate implementation feasibility, to = see what makes sense, and will resubmit for further discussion once I've do= ne that. (No sense in deciding one particular behavior is right and it turn= s out to be basically impossible to implement!) Thanks for the comments everyone! Josh Watzman