On 2013-05-08 9:26 PM, "Krinkle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Since there appears to have been a little bit of trivia
>
> Hi,
>
> Since there appears to have been a little bit of trivia around fixing
> these phpcs warnings, I'll open a thread instead.
>
> Both in javascript and PHP there are various keywords that can be used
> as if they are functions. In my opinion this is a misuse of the
> language and only causes confusion.
>
> I'm referring to code like this (both javascript and php):
>
> delete( mw.legacy );
>
> new( mw.Title );
>
> typeof( mw );
>
> echo( $foo . $bar );
>
> print( $foo . $bar );
>
> return( $foo . $bar );
>
> … and, wait for it..
>
> require_once( $foo . $bar );
>
> I think most experienced javascript developers know by now that using
> "delete" or "new" like it is a function is just silly and looks like
> you don't know what you're doing.
>
> To give a bit of background, here's why these work at all (they aren't
> implemented both keywords and functions, just keywords). Though I'm
> sure the implementation details differ between PHP and javascript, the
> end result is the same: Keywords are given expressions which are then
> evaluated and the result is used as value. Since expressions can be
> wrapped in parenthesis for readability (or logic grouping), and since
> whitespace is insignificant to the interpreter, it is possible to do
> `return("test")`, which really is just `return ("test")` and
> eventually `return "test"`.
>
> I'm obviously biased, but I think the same goes for "require_once"
> (and "include", "require" etc.). Right now this is causing quite a few
> warnings in our php-checkstyle report.
>
> I didn't disable that rule because it appears (using our code base as
> status quo) that we do want this. There's 0 warnings I could find in
> our code base that violate this, except for when the keyword is
> include|require(_once)?
>
> The check style sniffer does not (and imho should not) have a separate
> rule per keyword. Either you use constructs like this, or you don't.
>
> But let's not have some weird exception just because someone didn't
> understand it[1] and we all copied it and want to keep it for no
> rational reason.
>
> Because that would mean we have to either hack the sniffer to exclude
> this somehow, or we need to disable the rule, thus not catching the
> ones we do use.
>
> See pending change in gerrit that does a quick pass of (most of) these
> in mediawiki/core:
>
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/62753
>
>
> -- Krinkle
>
> [1] Or whatever the reason is the author originally wrote it like
> this. Perhaps PHP was different back then, or perhaps there was a
> different coding style.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
