On Tuesday, 14 May 2024 at 17:24, Juliette Reinders Folmer <php-internals_nos...@adviesenzo.nl> wrote:
> On 11-5-2024 16:43, Gina P. Banyard wrote: > >> On Thursday, 9 May 2024 at 15:17, Jorg Sowa >> [<jorg.s...@gmail.com>](mailto:jorg.s...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >>>> I don't think there are any other "functions" like this. >>> What about list(), isset(), print(), echo(), require(), include(), unset(), >>> empty()? We use them the same way as functions, but those are not real >>> functions. >> >> list() (and array()) may look like functions but do not behave like one as >> they affect the current scope by setting various variables. >> >> isset()/empty()/unset() require to work with undefined variables and have >> deeply ingrained behaviour within the engine, so making them simple >> functions is not as much of a "trivial" change. >> >> print, echo, include(_once) and require(_once) do not mandate their >> "argument" to be passed within parenthethis, so making them functions does >> not simplify the lexer/parser nor removes them as keywords. >> Also I don't know the last time I've used those language constructs "like a >> function". > > Seeing this list, makes me wonder: what about eval() ? eval() might make sense to try and convert to a function, this would probably also cleany solve the complaint about not being able to disable eval() [1][2] Best regards, Gina P. Banyard [1] https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=62397 [2] https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/4084
