Re: Opt-in "use function *;" for skipping check for function/const in alternate namespace

> Le 28 nov. 2019 à 12:56, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:01, Claude Pache <claude.pache@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think it is better to keep the language as regular as possible, and > consider that every non-fully-qualified name is relative to the current > namespace, unless there is an explicit use declaration that > says otherwise > > That's already false, and will only be true if we deprecate and remove the > fallback to global scope. > > >> use function *; // don't know what this does, but apparently it's good for >>> performance ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> >> Or: “don't know what this does, but apparently it silences deprecation >> notices...” >> > > > Silencing deprecation notices is always a temporary side-effect of fixing > code to work *at all* in some future release. Or rather, it should be - I > am 100% against any notion of "indefinitely deprecated and may never be > removed", that should always be some other type of notice. > > If we were deprecating unqualified functions from being looked up in the > current namespace, we would not need to add this new directive, we could > raise deprecation notices whenever the current lookup logic succeeded in > finding a namespaced function. Silencing the deprecation notice would > require either fully qualifying the function name, or explicitly adding a > "use" statement. > > > > The issue indeed is that the meaning is far from self-evident. Maybe one >> could use something that everyone and their mother could understand at >> first reading, such as: >> >> use function from global namespace; >> > > > That still doesn't really explain what's happening, because in code that > doesn't use any namespaced functions, the line has no user-visible effect > at all - functions are *always* used from the global namespace. What it > actually does is switch *off* a language feature, so perhaps it should be > something more like: > > declare(lookup_functions_in_current_namespace=false); > > That would also mean that it can be covered by any future way of setting > language directives, such as settings per "module", bundling into > "editions", etc. > > Regards, > -- > Rowan Tommins > [IMSoP] I wasn’t clear enough in my previous post: I was assuming that the ultimate goal was to remove (after deprecation) the fallback to global namespace. In that regard, the use function * declaration (or whatever variation of that) is both a way to programmer to say the preferred semantics regarding not-fully-qualified function names, and a tool to let most legacy scripts survive without too much effort. But probably I made a too strong assumption about the intended goal of the proposed feature? —Claude