Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88743
Return-Path: <morrison.levi@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 95217 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2015 22:16:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 10 Oct 2015 22:16:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=morrison.levi@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=morrison.levi@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.43 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.43 mail-vk0-f43.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.213.43] ([209.85.213.43:36336] helo=mail-vk0-f43.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 7F/26-44453-24E89165 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:16:35 -0400
Received: by vkgc187 with SMTP id c187so6075159vkg.3
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=dPGJ2yKtg760dpE/oALF1VxY1RWtrGXPY/mxe7vsRNs=;
        b=J8erkOnhFPimP9csKHJWPONnBafVv4AnjswR3jCgnRMZG6PSXdrePvHzi6Wnra96iY
         7+aXggtYrhL0Mf5lCl5UImX2WpNwqEQBmfXsuCAmyIbPX+lhszbER5unvs5oJcIvajCX
         wvtagPVXlNWq/9JDC6432CFI185ZPP2gvsTriRdCrgbwluyAI78uLso31061vzE1M/EQ
         wh9LqTaLJppGjyFUNzJt7h27IqCVpu8o/VAXMpU0/FfkJVInbgE6eN1fCoLK0W7wjTrN
         DeW50FMUfNyrYTH6fGHxKqIpYpcSRhfKpupWhvlc/4M048LdNQCs1+J+ulXoGObROh9d
         Bpew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.54.134 with SMTP id d128mr12197909vka.154.1444515391332;
 Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.41.205 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_io7TG4P+=cZrMEwhv=+9PxLQDQa9fijSG7OPfoKg6hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_io7TG4P+=cZrMEwhv=+9PxLQDQa9fijSG7OPfoKg6hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:16:31 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VCrtzrYkQnHFLRbgDRuwTILj8hE
Message-ID: <CAFMT4Nr2xv41kAPt8R=RGYUc-8FBg7mrihRTHdYd3qQZ3ucv8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, Bob Weinand <bwoebi@php.net>, 
	Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Forbid rebinding scope of closures created by ReflectionFunctionAbstract::getClosure()
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

> Based on feedback received on an earlier version of this patch [6] [7], we
> have not added any additional restrictions on rebinding of $this.
> getClosure()s of userland methods can still be bound to arbitrary $this
> values and getClosure()s of internal methods can still be bound to
> "compatible" $this values. (If someone sees a problem with allowing the
> former, please speak up!)
>
> Note that all this applies to ReflectionFunctionAbstract::getClosure()
> only. Rebinding behavior of ordinary closures doesn't change.

A user-defined closure can be rebound freely, but not one created from
Reflection - is that correct?

My personal opinion is that we should be working to eliminate
differences between internal and user functions (including closures).
In your opinion can we make user and internal closures act more alike?
I'm assuming rebind internal methods can't be done properly because
internal objects may use different C structs than a plain zend_object
(hence the crashes). Is that correct?