Re: [RFC] Undefined Variable Error Promotion

I have tried to no avail to be removed from this list. So I will just spam this until I am removed. On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, 3:15 AM Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com> wrote: > Le ven. 18 févr. 2022 à 12:24, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > On 17/02/2022 23:28, Mark Randall wrote: > > > I present: > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/undefined_variable_error_promotion > > > > > > It would be good to have a "Scope" or "Unaffected Functionality" > > section > > here, because there are a number of closely related things which were > > also raised from Notice to Warning in 8.0: > > > > - undefined array keys > > - undefined object properties > > - array access on a non-array > > - property access on a non-object > > > > I think it is sensible to discuss those separately, but it would be good > > to make that clear. > > > > > > Similarly, it would be good to have more discussion of what "accessing" > > means, as the current examples are quite narrow, only showing direct use > > and the ++ operator. Other functionality potentially affected: > > > > - passing the variable to a function, presumably excluding by-reference > > parameters which don't currently warn > > - all the combined assignment operators - > > > > https://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.assignment.php > > - the array append operator ($a[] = 42;) does NOT currently give an > > undefined variable Warning > > - variable variables, e.g. "$b = 'a'; echo $$b;" > > - the compact() pseudo-function > > > > There's probably others that I've missed. > > > > I 100% agree with that. An "Unaffected Functionality" section would be much > welcome. > > I would add to the list: isset($foo) when $foo is first seen. > (To me this should not throw anything, like for uninitialized properties.) > > If the RFC is about promoting the current warnings to Error without adding > any other Error at places that currently don't throw any warnings, then it > could be useful to say so. And if the RFC is going to propose to throw > Error at places that are currently warning-less, the list should be > explicit. > > I very much call for an implementation to be provided before starting any > vote on the topic btw. > This is typically the kind of topic where getting into the actual code > might help spot edge cases. > > Thanks for the RFC btw! > > Nicolas >