On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>> To get the same benefits (jit and such) wouldn't it be better to introduce
>> a "use function root;" or similar statement or a declare() to specify this
>> file imports all root functions?
> We already have this right now, and realistically speaking, who wouldn't
> do that in their code instead of writing weird \strlen() code? Everybody
> would configure their IDEs and so to insert this automatically. So we're
> talking about RFC to make people work harder for what they already have
> now and then end up in the same place we are already right now.

I agree with Stas that this "use function root;" or whatever is pointless.

>> was acted on at any time in the future. and in addition people will silence
>> the notices on global error reporting level, because violations would
> And note also that we can't silence just this warning. Which means
> people would have to silence *all* warnings, thus making all other
> messages useless. This is not a good development and this is not what we
> should be training users to do - saying "well, it's a warning, just
> silence it" is the worth idea we could have. If we create a warning,
> recommendation should be "it's important enough so we call your
> attention to it, please deal with it", not "just silence it". If it's OK
> in most cases (as opposed to rare exceptional cases) for it to be
> silenced, it shouldn't be there in the first place.

We have nearly zero E_STRICT warnings right now. Simply configure your
error reporting level to omit E_STRICT if you don't want them. You are
blowing this out of proportion.

PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to