On Thu, Aug 29, 2019, 12:33 AM Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 8/28/19 4:23 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> > $foo++ becoming 1 when $foo is undefined is not intuitive to me.
>
> I guess we have different intuition.
>
> > To take a very trivial example, that behaviour causes “for ($i = 0;
> > $i < 10; $I++) {}” to loop indefinitely.
> This is rather shallow issue, which any modern IDE would highlight for
> you in about 0.5 seconds. No need to change the language for that.
> Frankly, I have hard time remembering when any of such typos ever get
> past IDE check since I started using IDEs.
> And, of course, it's completely obvious issue - you could as well forget
> to write $i++ at all, or write $j++ and have $j defined somewhere...
> there's a lot of artificial scenarios one could think of. No reason to
> change rules of the whole language because of it.
>
Can you point me to an IDE that runs on the server?
I think you are mixing static analysis error with dynamic runtime analysis.
IDE can't point to an error it doesn't know about(which I didn't code using
IDE but use notepad, where I didn't run full test before publishing to
production).
I don't think it makes sense to allow the language be a home of "anything
goes, no innovation".
A language without specification.
