On 27 May 2023 11:40:44 BST, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> wrote: >On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 22:32, David Gebler <davidgeb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> either you use static analysis tools as part of your PHP workflow, because >> you care about that stuff, or you don't. > >I these words imply an unpleasant connotation; that people who don't >use static analysis tools are bad people who don't care about their >code.
That's not what was being said at all, as is clear a couple of sentences later: > If you don't habitually use these tools already, you're probably not going to > be annotating your code with #[Override] anyway. The claim being made was not about good or bad programmers, or whether they *deserve* the benefit of the change; it was about whether it's likely that they'll *receive* the benefit of the change. To rephrase, the proposal is for the engine to only warn about code where the attribute is present, not where it's absent, so for a user to benefit they have to edit their code to include it. If they edit their code and then run a static analyser, they don't need the attribute to be built into the engine; if they don't add it, the feature has zero benefit to them. So the argument is that the key estimate for whether to include it in the engine is how many users will add the attribute, but not run a static analysis tool. If that number is very low, adding it to the engine has a very low value. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
