Re: [RFC] is_trusted - was is_literal
| From: | Craig Francis | Date: | Mon, 21 Jun 2021 23:28:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] is_trusted - was is_literal | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-114997@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 12:18 am, Benjamin Morel <benjamin.morel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 at 01:06, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
>
>> On 21 June 2021 23:37:56 BST, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >The name "is_trusted" is misleading.
>> >Literal is nothing but literal.
>>
>> I agree with this. The name is_trusted is going to be the same naming
>> mistake as "safe mode" was. Developers will put their trust in it that it
>> is 100% guaranteed safe.
>
>
> FWIW, agreed, too. Trusted is vague and may imply some false sense of
> security. Literal is literally what it says on the tin.
>
I can follow up properly tomorrow, but by popular request we do support
integers as well (could be seen as stretching the definition of “literal” a
bit).
And we did ask for suggestions last week, which ended up with a vote (as I
couldn’t decide).
That said, I’m really glad that the only issue we seem to have is the name.
Craig