Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101271 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63071 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2017 17:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Dec 2017 17:55:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php-lists@koalephant.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php-lists@koalephant.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain koalephant.com designates 206.123.115.54 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php-lists@koalephant.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 206.123.115.54 mail1.25mail.st Received: from [206.123.115.54] ([206.123.115.54:60156] helo=mail1.25mail.st) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 47/00-62356-102DA2A5 for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:55:14 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.34] (unknown [49.48.240.239]) by mail1.25mail.st (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CEDD60412; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85764A4C-9EEE-4C7A-8B3F-22A87DCAFF79" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 00:55:02 +0700 In-Reply-To: <2dd0e62d-1885-08d3-2ca5-4f6c3c68176f@rhsoft.net> Cc: internals@lists.php.net To: lists@rhsoft.net References: <91639df6-4fbd-a649-6558-7ae9130020ff@telia.com> <670DE052-934C-4EFE-9B70-C59736EAFAD1@koalephant.com> <2dd0e62d-1885-08d3-2ca5-4f6c3c68176f@rhsoft.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax From: php-lists@koalephant.com (Stephen Reay) --Apple-Mail=_85764A4C-9EEE-4C7A-8B3F-22A87DCAFF79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 8 Dec 2017, at 5:16 pm, lists@rhsoft.net wrote: >=20 > "Now expressing the same thing in two different ways, with or without = & is confusing, so I think one needs to think about if old syntax should = be deprecated in 8.0" would be a massive BC break That wasn=E2=80=99t in Rowans suggestion, it was in Bj=C3=B6rn=E2=80=99s = response to the original message. You=E2=80=99re either not reading who = wrote what before you reply, or you=E2=80=99re deliberately trying to = imply a person has advocated for something they never even mentioned. Even *if* the consensus was to drop support for & references in php8 - = thats a major new version, with AFAIK, literally no planned ETA, of any = kind. --Apple-Mail=_85764A4C-9EEE-4C7A-8B3F-22A87DCAFF79--