Re: [RFC] Undefined Variable Error Promotion

On 24/02/2022 02:31, Bob Weinand wrote:

However, should your RFC pass, it is not possible to say "hey, I generally consider this a low impact class of errors, please try to continue".

This is correct. As the custodians of the language, it is our responsibility to decide what the engine considers low / high impact and act accordingly. In some cases users get the choice, but in most cases we make the choice for them. We have internals and the voting system precisely for this reason, to have a broad number of voices involved in those decisions. If users wish to use the latest versions, they must ensure they meet its requirements, this is really no different than any other BC break we do for the good of the language and its users. A couple of years ago we voted to promote 13 things to become errors / type errors, and I note you voted in favour of 12 of them, without requiring an opt-out. I must therefore assume you consider the use of undefined variables to be a legitimate coding style, and that's fine if that is your position. This RFC boils down to internals deciding, as a group, that it isn't one we want to support in future. Mark Randall