On Sun, Aug 25, 2024, at 00:58, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>
>
> On 24 August 2024 19:16:13 BST, Stephen Reay <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 Aug 2024, at 00:01, Ilija Tovilo <[email protected]> wrote::
> >>
> >> 1. Flipping lookup order: ~a few dozens of changes
> >> 2. Global only: ~3 000 changes
> >> 3. Local only: ~139 000 changes
>
> >There's also an impact on internals development/RFC with either (1) or (2): *any*
> >proposed new global function in the standard library now has a BC barrier to pass if it *might*
> >conflict with one defined by anyone in userland, in any namespace.
>
> Just to correct this point, this is only a problem for option 1. With option 2, if the function
> exists only in a namespace, you have to unambiguously refer to that namespaced name (via whatever
> syntax), and there is no chance of collision with a global name in future. For me, that's one
> of the biggest advantages of that option.
>
> And to repeat myself: I agree that option 3 is the ideal in theory, but in practice the
> short/medium term impact is so big, I'm not convinced it's worth it for the long term
> gain.
>
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]
>
It may also be worth looking at it a different way: if functions didn’t exist today (such as a
100% OOP language) and we wanted to implement functions: how would we implement it?
If it is different than what we have today, the short term impact is almost always worth it;
whatever it is. And just to toss out another random aphorism: the short-term pain of change is often
better than the long term agony of stagnation.
— Rob