Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99517
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pieterhordijk.com from 185.78.96.68 cause and error)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:33:50 +0200 (CEST)
To: nikita ppv <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Pedro =?utf-8?Q?Magalh=C3=A3es?= <mail@pmmaga.net>, 
	internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <1735694493.102840.1497432830845.JavaMail.zimbra@pieterhordijk.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c9zog4fhBPS8HCz0fd7rnvxNnsYzcjwaStSTT7=E69CXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJd4=YY2g0M19LAOeKjHrxdeAnEozjLAn2EJA6JqUVDTfpmE7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c9zog4fhBPS8HCz0fd7rnvxNnsYzcjwaStSTT7=E69CXQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Topic: Restarted vote on the negative arrays
Thread-Index: oBIluhR0i8tYtLk+HESqyaeI1pStog==
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Restarted vote on the negative arrays
From: info@pieterhordijk.com (Pieter Hordijk)



----- Original Message -----
> From: "nikita ppv" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
> To: "Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es" <mail@pmmaga.net>
> Cc: "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:15:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Restarted vote on the negative arrays

> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es <mail@pmmaga.net> w=
rote:
>=20
>> Hi internals,
>>
>> Based on the feedback on the original RFC targeting 7.2, I have now upda=
ted
>> the RFC to target version 8.0. Additionally, I changed the existing PR t=
o
>> throw a E_DEPRECATED notice on the cases where this RFC will cause a BC
>> break when the change is implemented to ease the detection of such cases=
.
>>
>> I have closed the current vote (YES 14 - 16 NO) and opened a new one for
>> the revised RFC targeting the next major version.
>>
>> You can vote (again) at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/negative_array_index
>> until 28/6/2017 19:00 UTC.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pedro
>>
>=20
> As this is a significant change to the RFC, I'd recommend moving it back =
to
> discussion first.
>=20
> Without some further evaluation, I am not sure whether throwing a
> deprecation from a low level hash API function like this is safe. The
> deprecation may be converted into an exception and it's not immediately
> clear that calling code will handle this correctly. In any case, even
> assuming this is safe, what is the expected behavior if the deprecation
> notice is converted into an exception? As the implementation stands right
> now, the element will still be inserted into the array. Is this intention=
al?
> ("We don't care" is also a valid answer -- it's an edge case.)
>=20
> It would also be nice to quickly check what the performance impact of thi=
s
> change is (a micro-benchmark on array appends should be enough). The patc=
h
> adds a number of additional checks in a very hot code-path, which may or
> may not have a measurable impact.
>=20
> Regards,
> Nikita

My concern is that valid code which is working fine and will continue worki=
ng
fine with the change described in the rfc will now start spitting out notic=
es.

How often and how many? I don't know.

On top of that I agree with Nikita about the possibility of conversion to
exceptions which will (/ might) actually break existing code.

Pieter