Re: function autoloading v4 RFC

On 17 August 2024 22:33:03 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: >I wouldn't consider it a BC break, no. But (ironically?), Symfony crashes with this change. >It really shouldn't but ... I don't think it makes sense to say "it breaks existing code, but it's not a compatibility break". Perhaps what you're saying is "it's only a BC break for code that's not following best practices"? But more relevant than whether you think the current code is "correct" is the fact that a) it will need to be changed to work with your proposal; and b) the change is simple and can be done in advance. So the RFC should acknowledge this BC break, but could argue that it's small enough to include in a minor version. This is actually really common - RFCs that introduce a new global function often acknowledge that it would break existing userland functions with that name. Between that and obviously serious BC breaks like *removing* a function, there's a big grey area where we have to make a judgement call. Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]