Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101272
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAF+90c87_Zd07ftVe29=GdjxhxjkFG+VXfm_ZZ3QWqER50QLuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <91639df6-4fbd-a649-6558-7ae9130020ff@telia.com>
 <c6247963-52a7-6532-676b-3f06a5c740e0@rhsoft.net>
 <670DE052-934C-4EFE-9B70-C59736EAFAD1@koalephant.com>
 <2dd0e62d-1885-08d3-2ca5-4f6c3c68176f@rhsoft.net>
 <E0439E78-0F51-409B-B2AF-B312DB29DA36@koalephant.com>
Message-ID: <6cb83aaa-1d3b-107a-2543-4763021ce813@rhsoft.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 03:15:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E0439E78-0F51-409B-B2AF-B312DB29DA36@koalephant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-CH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax
From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net")



Am 08.12.2017 um 18:55 schrieb Stephen Reay:
>> On 8 Dec 2017, at 5:16 pm, lists@rhsoft.net <mailto:lists@rhsoft.net> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> "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’t in Rowans suggestion, it was in Björn’s response to the 
> original message. You’re either not reading who wrote what before you 
> reply, or you’re deliberately trying to imply a person has advocated for 
> something they never even mentioned.

i responded to Björn's response and when someone than quotes me and 
refer to a side thread i am really not guilty

> 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

besides that's not the topic at all and i just responded to "If you 
point is pass-by-reference is bad and stupid, then it's off-topic and I 
suggest you should create a new RFC to abandon this feature"

however, "that's a major new version" is completly irrelevant in this 
point of time - what is relevant to think about the outcome of whatever 
is suggested *long before* something is even seriously considered to 
make things right - with the least possible BC break unless it is 
justified by a major benefit which makes the break worth

that's somehow learning from past mistakes and avoid to repeat them in 
similar changes - if such discussions would have happened always before 
consider implementations we would not sit here with similar functions 
but reverse parameter order and other such "nice" things which are ugly 
but fix them now would introduce a lot of more troubles than it solves