On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 07:14, Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think enough time has passed since php4's call-by-ref for the syntax to > be > reused now. I think it's unfair to call the RFC a reminiscent of > call-by-ref BTW. > Firstly, please let's stop calling this a "PHP 4" feature. It was fully supported right up to 5.2, deprecated in 5.3, and only removed in 5.4. Secondly, I completely disagree that it's unfair to compare the two. The syntax being proposed in this RFC (& at both call-site and definition-site) was supported by versions prior to PHP 5.4. Those versions left it optional at either side, which was certainly a mistake; but it was perfectly possible (and probably common) for coding standards to require it in both locations. It might be a good idea to include a more thorough discussion of this history in the RFC. > About requiring such call-annotations using a "declare" directive it feels > like a heated topic. But we don't need it, so let's split it appart. I > could very well see userland tools enforce it at the CS-checking level. > That would provide 99.999% of the target benefit > Unfortunately, it doesn't bring any of the benefits to static analysis that Nikita is proposing. Indeed, it relies on existing static analysers correctly finding the function definition to complain whether the optional & is in place. Including it as optional would certainly bring some benefit to readers, but I think it's a lot less than "99.999%" of what making it mandatory would bring. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
