On 19/08/2024 17:23, Rob Landers wrote:
As far as performance for ambiguous functions go, I was thinking of
submitting an RFC, where ambiguous function calls are tagged during
compilation and always resolve lexically, sorta like how it works now:
echo strlen($x); // resolves to global, always
require_once "my-strlen";
echo strlen($x); // resolves to my strlen, always
This works by basically rewriting the function name once resolved and
may make the code more predictable. If I can pull it off, it can be
relegated to a technical change that doesn’t need an RFC. Still
working on it.
I'm not entirely clear what you're suggesting, but I think it might be
either what already happens, or the same as Gina is proposing.
Consider this code [https://3v4l.org/184k3]:
namespace Foo;
foreach ( [1,2,3] as $i ) {
echo strlen('hello'), ' ';
shadow_strlen();
echo strlen('hello'), '; ';
}
function shadow_strlen() {
if ( ! function_exists('Foo\\strlen') ) {
function strlen($s) {
return 42;
}
}
}
In PHP 5.3, this outputs '5 42; 42 42; 42 42;' That's fairly
straight-forward: each time the function is called, the engine checks if
"Foo\strlen" is defined.
Since PHP 5.4, it outputs '5 42; 5 42; 5 42;' The engine caches the
result of the lookup against each compiled opcode, so the first strlen()
is cached as a call to \strlen() and the second as a call to \Foo\strlen().
As I understand it, Gina is proposing that it would instead output '5 5;
5 5; 5 5;' - the function would be "pinned" by making "\Foo\strlen" an
alias to "\strlen" for the rest of the program, and the function_exists
call would immediately return true.
Neither, as far as I can see, can happen at compile time, because the
compiler doesn't know if and when a definition of \Foo\strlen() will be
encountered.
In other words, maybe pinning could be solved more generally in a
future RFC, decrease your RFC’s scope and chance for sharp edge cases.
If anything, I think it would need to be the other way around: change
the name resolution logic, so that an autoloading proposal was more
palatable, because it didn't require running the autoloader an unbounded
number of times for the same name.
Proposing both at once seems reasonable, as the autoloading gives an
extra benefit to outweigh the breaking change to shadowing behaviour.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
