Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99518 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 83956 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2017 18:21:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jun 2017 18:21:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mail@pmmaga.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mail@pmmaga.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain pmmaga.net designates 149.210.149.72 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mail@pmmaga.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 149.210.149.72 outbound1.mail.transip.nl Received: from [149.210.149.72] ([149.210.149.72:43980] helo=outbound1.mail.transip.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 66/42-49155-59E71495 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:21:10 -0400 Received: from submission6.mail.transip.nl (submission6.mail.transip.nl [149.210.149.10]) by outbound1.mail.transip.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3wnw1Z1VxrzpVsd for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:21:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr0-f171.google.com (mail-wr0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) by submission6.mail.transip.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3wnw1Y5HZqz12Lhr for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:21:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 77so11919327wrb.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:21:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxUevduvO5PvWPJfTeGXUInF20U0GfNAaKanZruDTP6egOpnSY/ 6T0o03uuBjw+Poto8J2nxm2CJJGOOQ== X-Received: by 10.223.141.138 with SMTP id o10mr1042443wrb.69.1497464463136; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:21:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.64.213 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:20:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1735694493.102840.1497432830845.JavaMail.zimbra@pieterhordijk.com> References: <1735694493.102840.1497432830845.JavaMail.zimbra@pieterhordijk.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:20:42 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Pieter Hordijk Cc: nikita ppv , internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f53bc63a44f0551ef9db4" X-Scanned-By: ClueGetter at submission6.mail.transip.nl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=transip-a; d=pmmaga.net; t=1497464465; h=from:reply-to:subject:to: cc:references:in-reply-to:date:mime-version:content-type; bh=5oltWrjcIPMPdpga+2BRfRdXoqHP8du+vA+ina9Q9gc=; b=CU4NSEjzNZngYReF7R2V0/bQwKkAzqUBwDAVFLO3Ep/4RyZOTRYtw9AZ0xcmAurhDbNB5n UC7AnFmW8D3wPYz28IY5R1AaweFJTQW/kquiLThVDvRE1rIUblvtve+9IkZzR/X+wl+zBr yM8v/Nxh4ZaNMqZXaMu0K6jjRu3RgMuTaK9s+JQP+wo3FF1G5oZgPLHHzXcPlDcXcd4h8o mj6MT2wXVAacWEI/l21h3E4fxPZ6YGGLecg+KTd3znkMcRzDcj03zmLXlCAr9x2eQzlutN JZ7/SRtJi2ewPN/QV0V6MZ0jZzHB4kYCv+2fPB30M9K/820U/VS8V2FPDpIlWA== X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@transip.nl Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Restarted vote on the negative arrays From: mail@pmmaga.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?=) --f403045f53bc63a44f0551ef9db4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > As this is a significant change to the RFC, I'd recommend moving it back > to > > discussion first. > I have suspended the vote and will be resumed after we discuss the deprecation notice. > > 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 > intentional? > > ("We don't care" is also a valid answer -- it's an edge case.) > It seems to be handled correctly. However, the current PR may still change if there are any issues with it. > > It would also be nice to quickly check what the performance impact of > this > > change is (a micro-benchmark on array appends should be enough). The > patch > > adds a number of additional checks in a very hot code-path, which may or > > may not have a measurable impact. > Running the relevant parts of Zend/bench.php on master and the PR branch indicates that it shouldn't have a serious on performance. > My concern is that valid code which is working fine and will continue > working > fine with the change described in the rfc will now start spitting out > notices. > > How often and how many? I don't know. > That's a very valid concern. I believe that the benefit outweighs the potential noise but, if most people disagree, there are other options like waiting until the last 7.x or not introducing it at all. In this case I would like to hear some more feedback on the usefulness of the deprecation notice. If necessary, I can open a second vote for the deprecation notice keeping the first one only about the main point of the RFC. Regards, Pedro --f403045f53bc63a44f0551ef9db4--