Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:83178
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54E56A23.9060305@birkholz.biz>
References: <CAAyV7nGjdguX=4Nt0H=kYnwg8rZ1BkWf8duGZfzheOXXV61pqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<54E564E0.4040901@birkholz.biz>
	<54E56A23.9060305@birkholz.biz>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:01:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nGLGXprvL7-GooVKiGjQxY9RbhT-96Mc1ojVQ5RJY11Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dennis Birkholz <dennis@birkholz.biz>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC-Discuss] Scalar Type Declarations v0.5
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Dennis,

> Will you consider to let the people vote on how to enable strict mode
> like discussed in the v0.4 discussion? Like this here from the "Reviving
> scalar type hints" thread?

I believe that RFCs should be opinionated. I dislike the recent trend
around having a lot of voting options as it only complicates things
for the voter.

For this reason I have chosen what I think is technically the best
option and went from there. I am definitely open to changing that, but
it would need to be based on technical reasons and not just "popular
preference". Heck, in a recent public poll, over 20% of respondents
voted for it being an ini setting.

I touched on the reasons in the RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5#why_not_use_use_strict_instead_of_declare

But let me go through them one-by-one:

> Am 17.02.2015 um 00:58 schrieb Sara Golemon:> Straw poll:
>> 1) <?php strict;

This is new syntax, which is potentially ambiguous around what
"strictness" is being applied. It limits future compatibility.

Additionally, it's potentially ambiguous if a file starts with <?=
strict; 4; ?>. Is that setting strict mode for a file and outputting
4? Or is it outputting the constant "strict"? Sure, this could be
"solved" with a rule that it could only follow <?php, but that starts
to get arbitrary and potentially confusing, given the other ways to
open PHP tags.

>> 2) <?php-strict

STRONG -1, as it leaves potential for code disclosure if run on a
earlier version of PHP.

>> 3) use strict; (psuedo-namespace)

Re-using namespaces to effect runtime is weird. Not to mention what's
the expected behavior of block mode:

<?php
namespace Foo {
    use strict;
}

namespace {
    bar();
}
?>

is bar() called in strict mode? Or in non-strict mode?

>> 4) <?php // strict (I don't actually like HHVM's style, but if you do...)

Comments should not affect runtime behavior. HHVM uses it as they need
to affect behavior while remaining compatible with PHP. We do not have
that problem.

>> 5) declare(strict=true); (As a top-level declare only)
>> 6) declare(strict=true); (exactly as in v0.3 -- maybe you liked it)

Which had a number of people against it, with arguments about the odd
behavior of declare in blocks, etc.

>> 7) your write-in vote here

The only other one I've seen that *might* make sense is using a strict
qualifier on the namespace declaration:

strict namespace Foo {
}

IMO this has the same issues as use strict above. However, it also
seems to imply that the namespace is strict, where it's only the
declarations in the file that are.


I'm 100% open to technical arguments and justification to switch to
another syntax. I don't believe that it should be a poll though.
That's why I made a decision and backed it up. If anyone has logical
arguments or disagrees, let's discuss it. That way the proposal can be
improved through collaboration rather than just a blind vote.

Thanks for the feedback!!!

Anthony