Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
Le 16/03/2015 18:04, Marcio Almada a écrit : I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are having a voting with 2 yes votes vs 16 no votes. I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC Hi, Even though it's a bit too late: thanks for your work on this! At AFUP, we were +1 (by a rather large margin) on the idea of checking for additional arguments, considering it would help detect some (possible) future bugs. Seems we were going on the opposite direction of the votes on the RFC itself. We didn't quite reach a consensus between notices and warnings, though -- mostly because they would *maybe* have helped detect *possible future* bugs. -- Pascal MARTIN, AFUP - French UG http://php-internals.afup.org/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
Hi, all At first, Thanks for all your work put in here, Marcio. It gave me a new hint for a possible code-failure. FYI: PhpStorm lately added an inspector for that. Glad to see that move after I heard that the RFC won't pass. https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/WI-14692 Bye, Simon On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are having a voting with 2 yes votes vs 16 no votes. I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC for the following reasons: 1. The sooner we end the voting period the better for the PHP time line. Since there is no motives to think the voting will flip, the best attitude seems to be a withdraw. 2. We are having a lot of simultaneous voting right now and some voters care to read all the RFCs. The proposed RFC is long, requires testing etc. As it was already rejected, removing it from the list of RFCs in voting phase might be beneficial to the voting process as it reduces the RFC overload we are having because of the feature freeze. 3. Looking at the ML, there are many controversial points that were raised, a lot of them since yesterday. Weather they are debatable or not, all this controversy during voting phases is a bad thing (look at the scalar type hints drama we had). So it's better to just put this to end and move on. Thanks for the votes, I'll try to reply to the emails anyway whenever necessary :) PS: I don't intend to propose this RFC again in the future as I already have other more important RFCs planned for PHP 7.1 Thanks, Márcio
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
Hi, I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are having a voting with 2 yes votes vs 16 no votes. I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC for the following reasons: 1. The sooner we end the voting period the better for the PHP time line. Since there is no motives to think the voting will flip, the best attitude seems to be a withdraw. 2. We are having a lot of simultaneous voting right now and some voters care to read all the RFCs. The proposed RFC is long, requires testing etc. As it was already rejected, removing it from the list of RFCs in voting phase might be beneficial to the voting process as it reduces the RFC overload we are having because of the feature freeze. 3. Looking at the ML, there are many controversial points that were raised, a lot of them since yesterday. Weather they are debatable or not, all this controversy during voting phases is a bad thing (look at the scalar type hints drama we had). So it's better to just put this to end and move on. Thanks for the votes, I'll try to reply to the emails anyway whenever necessary :) PS: I don't intend to propose this RFC again in the future as I already have other more important RFCs planned for PHP 7.1 Thanks, Márcio
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
On 15 March 2015 at 19:19, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
It's also going to be impossible for people to try the patch out, or
to measure it for performance hit.
Performance has never been an issue with this RFC. You probably meant bc
break not performance hit, and the suggested change about dynamic calls
Bob did, if accepted by, is a minor change that will actually reduce the BC
breaks not enlarge it.
The patch has a pretty major bug in it.
If the function is called dynamically first, and then called
statically the warning is not given. i.e. the code below gives an
error 50% of the time. This is why people need time to evaluate code,
and why opening a vote straight after you've made a change to how the
syntax works is really bad idea.
?php
function bar($x) {
}
if (rand(0, 1)) {
$fn = 'bar';
$fn(4, 5);
}
bar(4, 5);
exit(0);
?
This was built off your branch with commit
6ca9d912c9aa8361852e979c172e57b011b91c16
cheers
Dan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
Hi, I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls. So I decided to drop the current voting, while it's still on the beginning, to properly update the RFC. We had 7 votes computed - 4 yes and 3 no votes. If you already voted, don't worry, it's just some minor changes and the voting will be restarted by the end of the day (March 15) so we don't loose the schedule. Another email will follow with a summary of what changed. Thanks for the comprehension. 2015-03-14 20:54 GMT-03:00 Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com: Hi, The Strict Argument Count RFC is now on voting phase: RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_argcount PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1108 The voting will close in exactly 14 days counting from now (using the date/time from this email as a reference). If you have any doubt about what was already discussed, please refer to this aggregated markmail summary http://markmail.org/thread/ol5s2vhw35ac2px3 Please read the RFC with full attention and good voting! :) Thanks, Márcio
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls. Please can you stop abusing the RFC process? This RFC is attempting to change the language. You received the information about the BC breaks weeks ago, they aren't new items that you just heard about for the first time today.. You opened the voting and then closed it immediately when you realised the vote wasn't going to sail through. You're now making changes to the RFC and proposing to re-open voting on the same day. How are people meant to have time to read and think about the changes? It's also going to be impossible for people to try the patch out, or to measure it for performance hit. The problem this RFC fixes is not a big enough problem to justify making decisions about the language at the last minute, particularly as the last version of the RFC I read breaks a whole load of valid code. cheers Dan -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls
Hi 2015-03-15 8:33 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com: On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls. Please can you stop abusing the RFC process? This RFC is attempting to change the language. You received the information about the BC breaks weeks ago, they aren't new items that you just heard about for the first time today.. You opened the voting and then closed it immediately when you realised the vote wasn't going to sail through. There is no abuse. This is not true, I truly received a suggestion from Bob Weiland and decided to consider it. 4:3 is not a sign that a voting will pass or not, it's only 7 votes and we usually get ~52 votes during a 14 days voting period. You're now making changes to the RFC and proposing to re-open voting on the same day. How are people meant to have time to read and think about the changes? It's a **minor** change, as said before. This was the most prudent attitude. It's also going to be impossible for people to try the patch out, or to measure it for performance hit. Performance has never been an issue with this RFC. You probably meant bc break not performance hit, and the suggested change about dynamic calls Bob did, if accepted by, is a minor change that will actually reduce the BC breaks not enlarge it. The problem this RFC fixes is not a big enough problem to justify making decisions about the language at the last minute, particularly as the last version of the RFC I read breaks a whole load of valid code. A lot of people tell me the opposite. I listened to your opinion many times and disagreed with it. Please don't express your disagreement with the RFC by mixing it with false accusations towards me. There is a huge gap between both attitudes. The disagreement is ok, but the false accusations coming from you make me sad. cheers Dan Marcio
