Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On 22/05/15 01:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having note in the docs for people not to name their classes void (not that there's any reason to do it anyway...). I strongly object to introducing any changes in the code though - warnings, etc. The whole problem here is that anything that is documented gives some legitimacy to the idea that it must be included during the PHP7 cycle. Since there is no consensus on the whole area it would perhaps block a more practical alternative if that surfaces in the next few years? Not that I can see anything that falls in that category either? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
Hi, I think that not reserving void by spec now is actually going against the Request For Comments process. If we don't soft reserve now we won't even have the possibility to discuss it later, this kills the discussion before it starts. The soft reservation has zero impact over PHP7.0, no one loses anything, so we should take the route that enables future debate. Márcio
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On May 21, 2015 6:45 PM, flaupre...@free.fr wrote: Hi, De: Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release. Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and don't throw an error when they're used. I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this should be called void or null - this discussion should be held when an RFC comes up, however we need to keep both options open until then. (Currently only null is reserved.) May I repeat my arguments to have this reservations enforced by a warning message ? 'Soft' reservation is easier but it is not enough. If we give a special meaning to one of these names in a 7.x release, we will introduce a BC break, whatever the documentation states, because that's the definition of a BC break : software that works fine in 7.0 and does not work the same in 7.x. Do we want to guarantee BC on minor versions ? If we don't enforce a check on reserved class names, IMO, we can't. Once again, this is a short-term half-baked solution we'll pay later. PS: If you're OK, I am ready to implement the check. Also I am fine to reserve it, I am not in favor of doing any time in 7.x. If it means to do it now, then let do it now. Cheers, Pierre
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
Hi, De: Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release. Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and don't throw an error when they're used. I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this should be called void or null - this discussion should be held when an RFC comes up, however we need to keep both options open until then. (Currently only null is reserved.) May I repeat my arguments to have this reservations enforced by a warning message ? 'Soft' reservation is easier but it is not enough. If we give a special meaning to one of these names in a 7.x release, we will introduce a BC break, whatever the documentation states, because that's the definition of a BC break : software that works fine in 7.0 and does not work the same in 7.x. Do we want to guarantee BC on minor versions ? If we don't enforce a check on reserved class names, IMO, we can't. Once again, this is a short-term half-baked solution we'll pay later. PS: If you're OK, I am ready to implement the check. Regards François -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
Hi! I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having note in the docs for people not to name their classes void (not that there's any reason to do it anyway...). I strongly object to introducing any changes in the code though - warnings, etc. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On May 22, 2015 7:20 AM, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having note in the docs for people not to name their classes void (not that there's any reason to do it anyway...). I strongly object to introducing any changes in the code though - warnings, etc. The problem I see with any kind of additional soft reserved words is that it opens the door to actually reserve them in 7.x. And this is a way more bigger problem. If anything, I would rather extend or agree on a BC definitions RFC to avoid such possible breaks in x.y+1 releases. Cheers, Pierre
[PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
Hi internals! For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release. Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and don't throw an error when they're used. I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this should be called void or null - this discussion should be held when an RFC comes up, however we need to keep both options open until then. (Currently only null is reserved.) If people think that this requires a vote, I'll open one. Thanks, Nikita [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_even_more_types_in_php_7
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
+1
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On 19 May 2015 at 17:16, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote: I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve typename RFC were unanimous. Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible, thank you. To be fair, this change does not change a single byte of code. It's just adding another type to the reserved list (to be documented) in the manual. Unless I'm mistaken. If the above really is the case, then why not stick up an RFC and vote.? P.S. I'm not 100% clear on the outcome of all of these votes on what is reserved and whether any of those give warnings/etc. in PHP 7; maybe someone could give me an executive summary off-list? :) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote: Hi internals! For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release. Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and don't throw an error when they're used. I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this should be called void or null - this discussion should be held when an RFC comes up, however we need to keep both options open until then. (Currently only null is reserved.) If people think that this requires a vote, I'll open one. I'm OK with it. Julien
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote: I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve typename RFC were unanimous. Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible, thank you. On a related note it is unclear what BC breaks are exactly allowed in minor releases. Adding new reserved types is a BC break, but it was done in PHP 5.4 with `callable`. We should solidify what we do and do not allow in minor releases for the PHP 7 release series. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote: I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve typename RFC were unanimous. Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible, thank you. While I agree that we should be wary of anything which break process, I think we should give some thought (possibly an RFC thought) to whether or not Documentation-only changes, such as what Nikita suggested, are actual violations of a feature freeze. Could one put up an RFC for void reservation right up to the release date of 7.0.0-final? I would say yes. Such an RFC is documentation-only and has no code behind it. Therefore it would have no impact on alpha/beta/rc testing. It's really a langspec RFC more than a runtime RFC to be quite honest. -Sara -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve typename RFC were unanimous. Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please stick to our established rules and release timetables as much as possible, thank you. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name
On 19 May 2015 17:21:58 BST, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote: On a related note it is unclear what BC breaks are exactly allowed in minor releases. Adding new reserved types is a BC break, but it was done in PHP 5.4 with `callable`. We should solidify what we do and do not allow in minor releases for the PHP 7 release series. 5.4 is the wrong example to look at for BC precedent. It was immediately *after* 5.4's large number of changes (which were largely refugees from the sinking of 6.0) that a policy was adopted, and followed for 5.5, 5.6, and 7.0. It still leaves some room for controversial interpretation, but it certainly disallows many of the things that happened in 5.4 outside of a major release, and this is by design. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
