> On 23 Aug 2024, at 23:13, John Coggeshall <j...@coggeshall.org> wrote: > > > > On Aug 23 2024, at 11:49 am, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop....@rwec.co.uk> > wrote: > > And most users don't object to using a leading backslash, they just (quite > reasonably) have no idea what impact it has on the ability of the engine to > optimise their code. > > I think this is a misread, and I don't think you can argue that there is a > clear understanding of "most users" here. While I admit I too don't have real > data to back this up, I would be more likely to believe "most users" would > absolutely object to being forced into using a leading backslash and would > find it non-sensical that you must add a backslash for the engine to do the > "right thing" (in this case, optimize their code with a security benefit), vs > just doing the right thing by default. >
Hi John, Now please don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating for a change to drop the fallback to global symbols. I wouldn't be against such a change but I don't think it's a problem that needs to be solved right now. But if that were the proposal, I have to ask about something you said: > would find it non-sensical that you must add a backslash for the engine to do > the "right thing" (in this case, optimize their code with a security > benefit), vs just doing the right thing by default. What do you mean by this? What is "the right thing"? Are you saying that you think people would expect an unqualified function name to automatically act like a global function name, and never check for a local namespaced function of the same name? Just to be clear, you understand that is the literal opposite of how classes/traits/interfaces work in PHP, yes? I'm not saying that isn't necessarily how people think, I have literally zero data about this besides my own thoughts, but it seems like a bizarre idea that people would *expect* function name resolution to work completely opposite to how class/class-like name resolution works. Cheers Stephen
