Hi Albert, > On Feb 11, 2020, at 11:22, Albert Casademont <albertcasadem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Am 11.02.20 um 13:42 schrieb Albert Casademont: >> >>> This is very interesting, thanks! >>> >>> Would it make sense to also add an INI setting to disable superglobals >>> and response functions? >> >> no because changing basic language behavior that way is not helpful for >> code meant to run everywhere and not stop working just because tomorrow >> someone changed a random ini setting > > That could be said for all INI settings: yes they can break things if you > touch them without knowing what they do. > > I think it might make sense to be able to disable superglobals and response > functions if your codebase is committed to using the new classes, much like > the old "register_globals" did. Why pollute the global namespace if you > don't need them?
I share Harald's opinion here. I think a .ini setting to disable superglobals and the response-related functions is out-of-scope for this RFC. -- Paul M. Jones pmjo...@pmjones.io http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
