Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Libsodium as a core extension in PHP 7.2
| From: | Scott Arciszewski | Date: | Sat, 04 Feb 2017 15:20:45 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Libsodium as a core extension in PHP 7.2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-98178@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Fleshgrinder <php@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/2017 12:54 AM, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> > I like \Sodium\foo instead of sodium_foo, but it deviates from the norm.
> > If we're going to break the norm, we should do so on a stronger majority
> > than 50%+1.
> >
>
> I see another problem besides the issue that a namespaced core elements
> are being introduced like in the US Senate, hidden within another bill,
> and the fact that I still don't like the Sodium API itself and that is
> that this might make autoloader updates in the future in regards to
> functions and/or constants more complicated.
>
> One idea back than was that the autoloader is only triggered for things
> that are listed in a use statement. This would have multiple advantages
> since we would not require any backslash in front of built-in stuff
> anymore as anything that is not within a use would never trigger the
> autoloader and remove any potential performance hit for built-in stuff
> due to autoloading.
>
> Sodium having its own namespace would definitely appear in use
> statements because that is how IDEs work today and because nobody wants
> to write
Sodium\foo(), or do they?
>
> --
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
Hi,
> I see another problem besides the issue that a namespaced core elements
> are being introduced like in the US Senate, hidden within another bill,
This is a separate choice that people can vote for. It's not exactly
hidden; nor is it bundled into a single "Yes/No".
The vote option concerns "permit an exception to the coding style" not
"change the coding style for everything". If anyone playing at home
wants to propose a separate RFC to update the coding style to allow
the use of namespaced functions in all future RFCs, it looks like (at
present count) at least 7 people would find such a proposal amicable.
(8 if you count me, though I don't have vote karma so my opinion is
irrelevant.)
Regards,
Scott Arciszewski
Chief Development Officer
Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com>