On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:02 PM Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is basically what I have been advocating for a while now already, > somewhat hidden between all the other noise of the "namespace-scoped > declares" thread. The model I would like to follow are Rust editions ( > https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/editions/index.html). In PHP right > now, the way to do this technically would be based on a > declare(edition=2020) in every file. I was hoping to make this a > per-package declaration instead, but haven't found the perfect way to do > this right now. > > I think that introducing this kind of concept for PHP is very, very > important. We have a long list of issues that we cannot address due to > backwards compatibility constraints and will never be able to address, on > any timescale, without having the ability of opt-in migration. > > I do plan to create an RFC on this topic. > > Nikita > Hi, After reading several replies and discussing several solutions, I'd like to add my feedback to this. Regardless of implementation details, I prefer a structure similar to the control we have over strict types. I like the idea of being able to configure this per file, or per "package" (however this may be implemented). The benefit here is that a certain file, or package, could run in fancy mode, while (possibly legacy) application code can run in classic mode. I do assume here that it's primarily behavior changes, perhaps adding/removing/deprecating functions/classes etc, or throwing exceptions instead of returning false. I expect that both would be using the same parser in this scenario. I'm not exactly sure if this will fix the backwards compatibility concerns though, at some points BC will have to broken to advance in the classic mode. Who will decide when a feature should be added in classic mode, or a behavioral change should be done? One could assume that anything that's not backwards incompatible could be added without issues. Would that mean that only "big" BC breaking changes would be added to the fancy version? Would we be looking at the removal of `==` comparisons in this fancy mode for example? Regards, Lynn van der Berg
