Re: Re: Question about superglobals

Ok forget it if anyone wants the patch just send me an email. By the way i didn't mention it also includes a function that retrieves the list of current superglobals. On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 22:47 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Sam Barrow wrote: > > I don't understand, people keep telling me this can cause problems so > > it's trash. Really? Functions and variables can cause problems too. Not > > to mention user input. Programming is not easy, but the more flexible it > > is the better. I think it's up to the programmer to keep track of his > > variables, rather than us limiting his functionality, just incase he > > makes a mistake. > > > > Any programmer can write bad code and it won't work. If he uses > > superglobals he should understand that he needs to document them, it's > > that simple. If that's too difficult, don't create a superglobal then, > > great. > > > > And if this isn't good enough, fine. Require an underscore for > > superglobals to differentiate them even more. I'll write the code > > myself, no problem. > > We simply don't think this flexibility makes up for the potential > confusion it can cause. It isn't solving something that can't be done, > it is just changing a minor syntax and concept which has been in place > for the past 12 years of PHP. To be completely blunt, this change has > no chance of making it into PHP. If you want it, you will have to > maintain your own patch. > > -Rasmus >