Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98183
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain koalephant.com designates 206.123.115.54 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
In-Reply-To: <CAKws9z0zYZyPG55nhB54ju_2ut8XwF0xuxv15+aiWzDks89__w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 23:12:59 +0700
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <CA6F4A1E-984C-4E8C-A03F-8E331E74985C@koalephant.com>
References: <CAKws9z3+qrGner3K58rPqPdXW00YFCm4esrr5xhr6ettoRRVYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGa2bXYw1Bofui58tr8gfyWu0YPdzoFokXZUZKSnnYbpCj11uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKws9z1SAkYj+zMOYhAcJD7t4FPrRz5Qv+9LE5Jr1zYUA68g3Q@mail.gmail.com> <f5efaa96-29f5-88e9-e08f-bb605e1b3b56@fleshgrinder.com> <CAKws9z0zYZyPG55nhB54ju_2ut8XwF0xuxv15+aiWzDks89__w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Libsodium as a core extension in PHP 7.2
From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay)

Hi Scott,

(Sorry for re-send)

> On 4 Feb 2017, at 22:20, Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> On 2/4/2017 12:54 AM, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
>>> I like \Sodium\foo instead of sodium_foo, but it deviates from the =
norm.
>>> If we're going to break the norm, we should do so on a stronger =
majority
>>> than 50%+1.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> I see another problem besides the issue that a namespaced core =
elements
>> are being introduced like in the US Senate, hidden within another =
bill,
>> and the fact that I still don't like the Sodium API itself and that =
is
>> that this might make autoloader updates in the future in regards to
>> functions and/or constants more complicated.
>>=20
>> One idea back than was that the autoloader is only triggered for =
things
>> that are listed in a use statement. This would have multiple =
advantages
>> since we would not require any backslash in front of built-in stuff
>> anymore as anything that is not within a use would never trigger the
>> autoloader and remove any potential performance hit for built-in =
stuff
>> due to autoloading.
>>=20
>> Sodium having its own namespace would definitely appear in use
>> statements because that is how IDEs work today and because nobody =
wants
>> to write `Sodium\foo()`, or do they?
>>=20
>> --
>> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
>> I see another problem besides the issue that a namespaced core =
elements
>> are being introduced like in the US Senate, hidden within another =
bill,
>=20
> This is a separate choice that people can vote for. It's not exactly
> hidden; nor is it bundled into a single "Yes/No".
>=20
> The vote option concerns "permit an exception to the coding style" not
> "change the coding style for everything". If anyone playing at home
> wants to propose a separate RFC to update the coding style to allow
> the use of namespaced functions in all future RFCs, it looks like (at
> present count) at least 7 people would find such a proposal amicable.
> (8 if you count me, though I don't have vote karma so my opinion is
> irrelevant.)
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Scott Arciszewski
> Chief Development Officer
> Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com>
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

I=E2=80=99m not a fan of the use of namespaced functions in the core =
either.

Given that 2/3 is required to accept a change, wouldn=E2=80=99t it make =
more sense for the =E2=80=98default=E2=80=99 on Q2 be to follow PHP =
existing standards, and require the 2/3 majority to deviate from that?

Cheers

Stephen=