[PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecate the backtick operator

  101823
February 11, 2018 19:41 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
Hello PHPeople, I present to you... the shortest RFC ever.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-backtick-operator

Let me know what you think!
  101824
February 11, 2018 20:00 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> Hello PHPeople, I present to you... the shortest RFC ever. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-backtick-operator > > Let me know what you think!
I think we need a bit more explanation that that. Why would we want to use backticks for Unicode strings? Why we need to deprecate existing functionality for that - aren't there other alternatives that do not require it? Also, it does not spell out what you mean by "deprecate" - would it be just a line in documentation? An warning/error message? Something else? "Backward Incompatible Changes" seems to be incorrect - if you plan to remove backticks or change its meaning at some stage, it certainly will impact scripts that use it. Even if it's just an error message, it can fail tests and cause other incompatible behavior. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  101825
February 11, 2018 20:17 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
Hi Stas thanks for the feedback. I've added more info for more clarity.

It's absolutely impossible to treat notices as errors in PHP, so I assume
everybody thinks the same. If someone converts notices to ErrorExceptions
or something, it's their fault.
A notice in tests is exactly what a deprecation is supposed to do, force
people to update their code.

Regarding the notice level, it's a bit confusing picking one. E_DEPRECATED,
E_STRICT, E_NOTICE... I'm not sure what it should be.
  101826
February 11, 2018 20:24 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> It's absolutely impossible to treat notices as errors in PHP, so I > assume everybody thinks the same. If someone converts notices to > ErrorExceptions or something, it's their fault. > A notice in tests is exactly what a deprecation is supposed to do, force > people to update their code.
If you force people to do something, by definition it is not "Backwards Incompatible Changes: None". If it were none, people would not be forced to do anything.
> Regarding the notice level, it's a bit confusing picking one. > E_DEPRECATED, E_STRICT, E_NOTICE... I'm not sure what it should be.
You should write all the details in the RFC. If you are not sure what to choose, write "I am not sure which one to choose here, options are X, Y and Z". -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  101836
February 12, 2018 09:16 mtkocak@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Midori_Ko=C3=A7ak?=)
Sounded reasonable to me. At least for security.

On 11 February 2018 at 21:24, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi! > > > It's absolutely impossible to treat notices as errors in PHP, so I > > assume everybody thinks the same. If someone converts notices to > > ErrorExceptions or something, it's their fault. > > A notice in tests is exactly what a deprecation is supposed to do, force > > people to update their code. > > If you force people to do something, by definition it is not "Backwards > Incompatible Changes: None". If it were none, people would not be forced > to do anything. > > > Regarding the notice level, it's a bit confusing picking one. > > E_DEPRECATED, E_STRICT, E_NOTICE... I'm not sure what it should be. > > You should write all the details in the RFC. If you are not sure what to > choose, write "I am not sure which one to choose here, options are X, Y > and Z". > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
  101831
February 12, 2018 04:45 tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Wes php@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello PHPeople, I present to you... the shortest RFC ever. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-backtick-operator > > Let me know what you think! >
-1, not that my vote matters, but huge -1. Nothing of value is gained by doing this. If there is something of value in doing this, or some far future feature this clears the way for, please enlighten me. But from where I sit this does nothing but break code for no reason. And yes, emitting E_DEPRECATED is a breaking issue for any code base that prides itself in being about to run all it's units with E_ALL set. If we are going to go about removing stupid operators in PHP, the current use of @ as an error suppression operator is much higher on the list since encourages people to write bad code by sweeping problems under the rug, and removing it would allow the operator to be reassigned to use as an annotation operator as seen in Java and other language. I'm not holding my breath for that to be done either.
  101834
February 12, 2018 06:19 thruska@cubiclesoft.com (Thomas Hruska)
On 2/11/2018 9:45 PM, Michael Morris wrote:
> If we are going to go about removing stupid operators in PHP, the current > use of @ as an error suppression operator is much higher on the list since > encourages people to write bad code by sweeping problems under the rug Or people don't like how PHP currently handles errors/warnings/notices
and would prefer to handle the messages themselves in the same context of the running code (i.e. not in a global handler). I'd rather see the @ operator become a "most recent" message collector instead of purely an error suppressor. That way, the current behavior wouldn't change for existing applications but users could start taking advantage of whatever associated functionality is added. There are also significant security issues that arise when NOT using the @ operator. -- Thomas Hruska CubicleSoft President I've got great, time saving software that you will find useful. http://cubiclesoft.com/ And once you find my software useful: http://cubiclesoft.com/donate/
  101835
February 12, 2018 08:37 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
Please stay on topic. Thank you.
  101837
February 12, 2018 10:03 lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)
On 12/02/18 06:19, Thomas Hruska wrote:
> On 2/11/2018 9:45 PM, Michael Morris wrote: >> If we are going to go about removing stupid operators in PHP, the current >> use of @ as an error suppression operator is much higher on the list >> since >> encourages people to write bad code by sweeping problems under the rug > Or people don't like how PHP currently handles errors/warnings/notices > and would prefer to handle the messages themselves in the same context > of the running code (i.e. not in a global handler).  I'd rather see the > @ operator become a "most recent" message collector instead of purely an > error suppressor.  That way, the current behavior wouldn't change for > existing applications but users could start taking advantage of whatever > associated functionality is added. > > There are also significant security issues that arise when NOT using the > @ operator.
This is another decisive area of PHP. YES I am still using @ to prevent PHP wandering off on it's own, so I can properly handle things like 'end of file', so I don't want the global error. Much of the push for typing everything is pushing global errors when local path changes WITHIN the class is much more appropriate. The 'most recent' error is how most database error processing is handled, and in most cases the error suppressed by @ is simply taking PHP out of line. Switches to disable global messages are now in something of a mess and adding more and more sources is of little help to the vast majority of users. backtick probably comes into the style class and with people Python for on machine script handling nowadays then removing access to the machine for PHP scripts just seems another push that way? Just what target area IS PHP supporting? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
  101838
February 12, 2018 11:43 narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)
Hi,

I agree with the criticism towards the RFC contents raised so far.
It's obviously put together with as little effort as possible, and the
cheeky version number doesn't help either ... Treating the RFC process
as a joke doesn't get you support.

But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people
opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to
be an operator, it's not a widely-used one, and we all know if it was
proposed for addition today it would have 0 chance of acceptance.
Also, I would go for E_DEPRECATED now + removal in 8.0 without further
future scope. IMO, it should be common sense to get rid of obsolete
features, and therefore the token doesn't need to be repurposed for
this to be a good idea.

Cheers,
Andrey.
  101839
February 12, 2018 13:16 me@jhdxr.com ("=?ISO-8859-1?B?Q0hVIFpoYW93ZWk=?=")
Hello,

>But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people >opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to >be an operator, it's not a widely-used one, and we all know if it was >proposed for addition today it would have 0 chance of acceptance.
How do you conclude that this is not a widely-used one? btw, you already hit the most important point. Why do we deprecate or remove feature for no good?
> in case PHP decided in future to use backtick enclosed strings for Unicode strings
AFAIK, since PHP7, we have no plan for unicode string. Best regards, CHU Zhaowei
  101840
February 12, 2018 13:53 narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)
Hi,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com> wrote:
> Hello, > >>But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people >>opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to >>be an operator, it's not a widely-used one, and we all know if it was >>proposed for addition today it would have 0 chance of acceptance. > > How do you conclude that this is not a widely-used one? >
Running shell commands in itself is not a common task, and I've only seen the backtick operator in 10-year old spaghetti code.
> btw, you already hit the most important point. Why do we deprecate or remove > feature for no good? >
You say it's "no good" because its existence doesn't create a problem in an obvious way, but by that logic we shouldn't ever touch anything that doesn't wreak havoc - I don't agree with that. We're not talking about a function that satisfies a very common need and/or has no alternative. We're talking about an operator that 100% replicates an existing function, without providing any benefits over it (on the contrary, using the function makes the code more easily understandable) and is thus built into the language itself for practically no reason. Cheers, Andrey.
  101841
February 12, 2018 14:38 eli@eliw.com (Eli White)
I'll chime in on the "What evidence do you have that this is not
widely-used" ... in fact, I have seen through my PHP career this used very
regularly, and training/workshop/class sessions at conferences still
regularly teach this as the 'standard way' to handle shell commands.

So I think that this would have a huge impact on existing code, and I am
similarly a huge -1.  Is it funky that random backticks cause a shell
action to happen?  Yes.  But there are a million funky things about PHP,
and we strive for backward compatibility when at all possible.  And there
is no direct gain/need to remove this feature.

Eli


On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:16 AM, CHU Zhaowei <me@jhdxr.com> wrote:

> Hello, > > >But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people > >opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to > >be an operator, it's not a widely-used one, and we all know if it was > >proposed for addition today it would have 0 chance of acceptance. > > > > How do you conclude that this is not a widely-used one? > > > > btw, you already hit the most important point. Why do we deprecate or > remove feature for no good? > > > > > in case PHP decided in future to use backtick enclosed strings for > Unicode strings > > > AFAIK, since PHP7, we have no plan for unicode string. > > > > Best regards, > CHU Zhaowei
  101842
February 12, 2018 14:47 tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Eli White <eli@eliw.com> wrote:

> I'll chime in on the "What evidence do you have that this is not > widely-used" ... in fact, I have seen through my PHP career this used very > regularly, and training/workshop/class sessions at conferences still > regularly teach this as the 'standard way' to handle shell commands. > > So I think that this would have a huge impact on existing code, and I am > similarly a huge -1. Is it funky that random backticks cause a shell > action to happen? Yes. But there are a million funky things about PHP, > and we strive for backward compatibility when at all possible. And there > is no direct gain/need to remove this feature. > > Eli > > Agreed. There are a lot of things in PHP that are easily overlooked and can
go unused, especially if all one ever does with it is web page generation. PHP can be used for shell scripting, and I've used it extensively for that since I don't know how to write bash scripts. I'd personally be rather peeved if I had to rewrite all my shell scripts.
  101843
February 12, 2018 15:38 kalle@php.net (Kalle Sommer Nielsen)
2018-02-12 15:38 GMT+01:00 Eli White <eli@eliw.com>:
> I'll chime in on the "What evidence do you have that this is not > widely-used" ... in fact, I have seen through my PHP career this used very > regularly, and training/workshop/class sessions at conferences still > regularly teach this as the 'standard way' to handle shell commands. > > So I think that this would have a huge impact on existing code, and I am > similarly a huge -1. Is it funky that random backticks cause a shell > action to happen? Yes. But there are a million funky things about PHP, > and we strive for backward compatibility when at all possible. And there > is no direct gain/need to remove this feature. > > Eli
Same thoughts here, -1 on deprecation. I prefer to use backticks over shell_exec() when writing code that does something simple. -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen kalle@php.net
  101845
February 12, 2018 18:26 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
There is not much to say. You either agree with it or you don't. And I
wasn't trying to make fun of none of you. Sorry if you consider the version
number inappropriate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  101848
February 12, 2018 19:09 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

On 2/12/18 10:26 AM, Wes wrote:
> There is not much to say. You either agree with it or you don't. And I
That's not how consensus discussion process in RFCs should work. It's not just throwing your opinion over the fence, because the response would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c . And don't get me wrong, having an opinion, including one different from any other people in the community, is completely fine. But: if you want to introduce a major change into a 20-year-old stable project, it can't be just somebody's opinion. It should be much more than that. And to make it much more than that there should be good argument why we need to do this change and why doing this change is so much better than not doing it that we have to spend time on it, bearing the migration costs of it, dealing with updating code and documentation, etc. It may be obvious to you, but explaining it to everyone else - sometimes repeatedly, and dealing with objections properly - not just saying "ok, that's my opinion, you either agree or don't" - is part of the work on the RFC that needs to be done. If the idea is not ready for this work, it's fine to have pre-RFC discussion - on the list or on any other venue - to shape it out, gather the ideas and support, figure out major possible objections and ways to address them, etc. Or just put the idea on the list and see if anybody else agrees, that sometimes happens too. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  101849
February 12, 2018 19:43 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
Again, the reason is: in case in future PHP wants to use backticks for
unicode strings, like javascript.
If the community think it's feasible, in PHP 9, 10, whatever, it must be
deprecated asap.
If you think PHP should use a different syntax for unicode strings in
future, you vote no.
It's as simple as that. I am asking to reserve a particular syntax for
something that could be needed in some years.
  101850
February 12, 2018 20:35 david.proweb@gmail.com (David Rodrigues)
I totally agree to deprecate and remove it in 8.0.

Some reasons:

It usage is very rare (actually, I don't remeber the last time that I see
that in use). Even in old codes.

It too could causes confusion with single-quote in some fonts, sizes and
styles.

Is more easy to identify shell_exec() than backtick usage, anyway.

It have exactly the same behaviour than shell_exec(). Do not need adapt
usage beyond of the replacement itself.

Some keyboard layouts (like mine, ABNT2) requires to press shift+backtick
key then space to print a single backtick. Other option is I print two
backticks at sametime (is what I do when I work with Markdown).

Backtick inside backtick requires a most rare slash backtick to escape it:
`\`` (actually, I even know if it works haha)

Bonus/curiosity: is hard to find the definition of backtick if you don't
know the name of this symbol in english. In portuguese it is called "acento
grave" (something like "grave accent").

The remotion of this "feature" will allow use the backtick character to
another thing futurely (which could be decided carefully). Or even unused
forever.


Em 12 de fev de 2018 5:43 PM, "Wes" php@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Again, the reason is: in case in future PHP wants to use backticks for > unicode strings, like javascript. > If the community think it's feasible, in PHP 9, 10, whatever, it must be > deprecated asap. > If you think PHP should use a different syntax for unicode strings in > future, you vote no. > It's as simple as that. I am asking to reserve a particular syntax for > something that could be needed in some years. >
  101860
February 13, 2018 18:47 pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM, David Rodrigues proweb@gmail.com> wrote:
> It too could causes confusion with single-quote in some fonts, sizes and > styles. > > Is more easy to identify shell_exec() than backtick usage, anyway. > > It have exactly the same behaviour than shell_exec(). Do not need adapt > usage beyond of the replacement itself. > Those reasons are enough to move my -1 to a -0.5 (meaning I'd consider
abstaining on a vote). The argument about reserving `foo` for unicode strings in some far-flung future don't hold any water. A. We tried Unicode, it went poorly, and we learned that ext/intl does the job quite well. As someone who put a lot of work into PHP 6, I don't see a reason to change that assessment. B. If we DID take a second stab at unicode, we have syntax for unicode strings already, ( u"Unicody", b"Binaryish" ) which doesn't require coopting syntax that's been around for most of the language's lifetime. -Sara
  101862
February 13, 2018 22:41 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
Consider that people dislike writing \strlen(), they will for sure dislike
writing u"string". Hence reassigning backticks to unicode strings seemed to
me like a possibility.
  101863
February 13, 2018 23:01 rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)
On 13 February 2018 22:41:54 GMT+00:00, Wes php@gmail.com> wrote:
>Consider that people dislike writing \strlen(), they will for sure >dislike >writing u"string". Hence reassigning backticks to unicode strings >seemed to >me like a possibility.
I think a lot of people would dislike writing all their strings in backticks as well. It may not even be that easy to type on some keyboard layouts; outside of coding, it's a pretty obscure character. A prefix syntax also has the advantage that you can still have u'strong' and u"weak" variants, and it has precedent in other languages, whereas `foo` has a strong association with code (Perl, Markdown come to mind). Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]
  101864
February 13, 2018 23:14 cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")
On 13.02.2018 at 23:41, Wes wrote:

> Consider that people dislike writing \strlen(), they will for sure dislike > writing u"string". Hence reassigning backticks to unicode strings seemed to > me like a possibility.
Okay. However, in my opinion, it is a bad idea to suggest a deprecation of a feature that *might* be used differently sometime in the future, because if it will not, the deprecation doesn't make any sense. So, YAGNI applies somehow. Actually, for me the only valid argument to deprecate the backtick operator is "because it is a shady way to execute a rare and dangerous operation". I, personally, would make that the main reason for the deprecation proposal, and would move the other arguments to the "future scope" section. -- Christoph M. Becker
  101865
February 13, 2018 23:18 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> Actually, for me the only valid argument to deprecate the backtick > operator is "because it is a shady way to execute a rare and dangerous > operation". I, personally, would make that the main reason for the > deprecation proposal, and would move the other arguments to the "future > scope" section.
I don't think it is "shady" - it's a well-known syntax, and while shell execution can indeed be dangerous in some scenarios, it is commonly used in cli applications, and is not that rare there. I don't see a point in deprecating it - it doesn't improve anything that I can see, only makes extra work for people that are using it. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  101851
February 12, 2018 20:36 tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Wes php@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, the reason is: in case in future PHP wants to use backticks for > unicode strings, like javascript. > If the community think it's feasible, in PHP 9, 10, whatever, it must be > deprecated asap. > If you think PHP should use a different syntax for unicode strings in > future, you vote no. > It's as simple as that. I am asking to reserve a particular syntax for > something that could be needed in some years. >
Any particular reason why "`unicode string `" wouldn't work? Trust me, everyone here has at least one feature or operator they would like to see done differently (cough - namespace operator - \ - cough) but the proverbial train left the station a long time ago.
  101852
February 12, 2018 20:43 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
No technical reason. Keep in mind that people dislike... a lot... writing
\strlen() (with the leading \) so I thought they would also dislike writing
u"unicode" or any other solution that uses more than 2 enclosing characters.
  101853
February 12, 2018 20:53 lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine)
On 12/02/18 20:43, Wes wrote:
> No technical reason. Keep in mind that people dislike... a lot... writing > \strlen() (with the leading \) so I thought they would also dislike writing > u"unicode" or any other solution that uses more than 2 enclosing characters.
My personal fix for that particular problem is simply use unicode IN core and ditch mbstring. That is not going to happen before I pass on, but hopefully some later version of PHP will not have to worry at all about unicode ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
  101858
February 13, 2018 14:34 johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)
On Mo, 2018-02-12 at 14:36 -0600, Michael Morris wrote:
> Any particular reason why "`unicode string `" wouldn't work?
Because this would be a BC break which is really hard to detect. People might do this (i.e. while generating Markdown output or something about shell scripting or ...) and this might on first sight produce a vlid output. johannes
  101859
February 13, 2018 18:27 ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)
Aren't those different AST nodes?

On 13 Feb 2018 15:34, "Johannes Schlüter" <johannes@schlueters.de> wrote:

> On Mo, 2018-02-12 at 14:36 -0600, Michael Morris wrote: > > Any particular reason why "`unicode string `" wouldn't work? > > Because this would be a BC break which is really hard to detect. People > might do this (i.e. while generating Markdown output or something about > shell scripting or ...) and this might on first sight produce a vlid > output. > > johannes > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
  101854
February 12, 2018 20:54 alice@librelamp.com (Alice Wonder)
On 02/12/2018 11:43 AM, Wes wrote:
> Again, the reason is: in case in future PHP wants to use backticks for > unicode strings, like javascript. > If the community think it's feasible, in PHP 9, 10, whatever, it must be > deprecated asap. > If you think PHP should use a different syntax for unicode strings in > future, you vote no. > It's as simple as that. I am asking to reserve a particular syntax for > something that could be needed in some years. >
backtick to execute a shell command is fairly standard in unix shell scripting. JavaScript is not used for unix shell scripting, php is. Not commonly, but I've used it more than once - especially when I already have a php class that does something I need to do from a shell script. It's a lot faster to write the shell script in PHP than to port the various shell scripts to python. There is no good reason to remove it, and use of a back tick for executing shell commands has a long history in many scripting languages.
  101846
February 12, 2018 18:48 pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Wes php@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello PHPeople, I present to you... the shortest RFC ever. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-backtick-operator > > Let me know what you think! > ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄███░░░░░
░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███████░░░░ ░░███▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████▀░█░░░░ ░░▀█████▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀░▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀░▀███░░░░ ░░░░███▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀███░░░░██▀░░░░ ░░░░██░░░░░░▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄███░░░░░ ░░░░▄█▄▄████▀█░█▄██▄▄░░░░░░░░░████▀░░░░░ ░░░▄████████░░░██████▄▄▄▄░░░░░████░░░░░░ ░░░███░█░▀██░░░▀███░█░░███▄▄░░░░▀█░░░░░░ ░░░████▄███▄▄░░░███▄▄▄█████▀░░░░░██░░░░░ ░░▄████▀▀░▀██▀░░░▀█████████░░░░░░██░░░░░ ░░▀███░░░▄▄▀▀▀▄▄░░░░▀██████░░░░░░░█░░░░░ ░░░███░░█░░░░░░░▀░░░░▀███▀░░░░░░░░█░░░░░ ░░░████▄▀░░░░░░░░▀░░░████▄░░░░░░░░░█░░░░ ░░░██████▄░░░░░░░░░▀▀████▀░░░░░░░░░█░░░░ ░░▄█████████▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀█░░░ ░░███████████▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▄░░ ░░████████▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▄░ ░░████████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░ ░▄███████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ ░▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█ ░░██░░░░██░░▄▄█████▄▄░░██████▄░███████░░ ░░███▄░░██░▄██▀░░░▀██▄░██░░░▀████░░░░░░░ ░░█████░█████░░░░░░░█████░░▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄░░ ░░██░▀████▀██░░░░░░░██▀██████▀░██▀▀▀▀▀░░ ░░██░░░███░▀██▄▄▄▄▄██▀░██░░░░░░██▄▄▄▄▄░░ ░░▀▀░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀███▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀▀░░
  101847
February 12, 2018 18:59 netmo.php@gmail.com (Wes)
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄███░░░░░
░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███████░░░░
░░███▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█████▀░█░░░░
░░▀█████▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀░▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀░▀███░░░░
░░░░███▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀███░░░░██▀░░░░
░░░░██░░░░░░▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄███░░░░░
░░░░▄█▄▄████▀█░█▄██▄▄░░░░░░░░░████▀░░░░░
░░░▄████████░░░██████▄▄▄▄░░░░░████░░░░░░
░░░███░█░▀██░░░▀███░█░░███▄▄░░░░▀█░░░░░░
░░░████▄███▄▄░░░███▄▄▄█████▀░░░░░██░░░░░
░░▄████▀▀░▀██▀░░░▀█████████░░░░░░██░░░░░
░░▀███░░░░░██░░░░░░▀██████░░░░░░░█░░░░░░
░░░███░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▀███▀░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░
░░░████▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░████▄░░░░░░░░░█░░░░
░░░██████▄░░░░░░░░░▀▀████▀░░░░░░░░░█░░░░
░░▄█████████▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀█░░░
░░███████████▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▄░░
░░████████▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█▄░
░░████████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░
░▄███████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄█████▄▄░░░██░░░░███░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░▄██▀░░░▀██▄░░██░░░███░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░███░██░░███░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░██▀░█████░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░▀██▄▄▄▄▄██▀░░██░░██░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀███▀▀░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░
  101866
February 13, 2018 23:25 markus@fischer.name (Markus Fischer)
On 2018-02-11 20:41, Wes wrote:
> Hello PHPeople, I present to you... the shortest RFC ever. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-backtick-operator > > Let me know what you think! >
I don't have much of an opinion yet on the issue (observing the arguments in the discussion so far), but one thing which stuck out for me from one other recently announced RFCs [1] was the additional thought of automating the code change via migrations tools, etc. No one likes to do things manually and getting support for code fixers could be of help here. cheers, - Markus [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fallback-to-root-scope-deprecation