On Sun, Aug 25, 2024, at 00:58, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote: > > > On 24 August 2024 19:16:13 BST, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com> wrote: > > > >> On 25 Aug 2024, at 00:01, Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.il...@gmail.com> wrote:: > >> > >> 1. Flipping lookup order: ~a few dozens of changes > >> 2. Global only: ~3 000 changes > >> 3. Local only: ~139 000 changes > > >There's also an impact on internals development/RFC with either (1) or (2): > >*any* proposed new global function in the standard library now has a BC > >barrier to pass if it *might* conflict with one defined by anyone in > >userland, in any namespace. > > Just to correct this point, this is only a problem for option 1. With option > 2, if the function exists only in a namespace, you have to unambiguously > refer to that namespaced name (via whatever syntax), and there is no chance > of collision with a global name in future. For me, that's one of the biggest > advantages of that option. > > And to repeat myself: I agree that option 3 is the ideal in theory, but in > practice the short/medium term impact is so big, I'm not convinced it's worth > it for the long term gain. > > Rowan Tommins > [IMSoP] >
It may also be worth looking at it a different way: if functions didn’t exist today (such as a 100% OOP language) and we wanted to implement functions: how would we implement it? If it is different than what we have today, the short term impact is almost always worth it; whatever it is. And just to toss out another random aphorism: the short-term pain of change is often better than the long term agony of stagnation. — Rob
