Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106290
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFPFaMLpZ=okschrpeH77AhZTHcvFBuPf1S1bXH6psxmvABK7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5C8F3403-2972-467A-AFA5-347C09E5FA73@gmail.com> <CAF+90c-oN=_rjFyq4HbMCwyq=xhDopnF5ETy_oViL_DbjD=2oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPg3XxLg21WbLLPLoNvXfTrw-wv6uhuVSG=r=QHs11-9iBnNeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9bcnHK1xeWX2pPQMsrdr3Hjb3xRhrm0iA4kr-0SKXcXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg3XxJ3MB657Q1SB0LcHfYDETXPJXBcnEovV0G=fDcPixYvtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg3XxJ3MB657Q1SB0LcHfYDETXPJXBcnEovV0G=fDcPixYvtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:44:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKp32FCMRSNaRdWjs0hViFJYq8ZZit7TuTr5-MX2G7KT8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003cb3a0058e7ff42f"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Deprecate PHP's short open tags V2
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--0000000000003cb3a0058e7ff42f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 22:40, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hypothetically, it can be re-evaluated sooner, particularly if "everyone"
> in the PHP ecosystem appears to respond very well once the deprecation and
> error stages happen. In fact, I wouldn't want "but we voted for 9.0" to be
> a point being made if/when that discussion comes along.  My point is that
> the removal release/date, in my opinion, is a detail that we don't need to
> be concerned with right now and it's just adding noise.  You disagree, and
> that's totally okay.
>


Regardless of when we have the conversation, I will remain opposed to
removing it any time before 9.0.

There's very little justification for removing it in the first place, so I
can't imagine what justification there'd be to remove it 2 or 3 years
earlier.

The only advantage I can see of delaying the debate is to leave open the
possibility of keeping the error into 10.0. If that becomes necessary, it
will be a sign that something has gone wrong, because it will imply that
takeup of 8.x was so low that people are still running code where this
syntax is used. Sadly, given the current zeal for removing working
features, I fear that may happen.

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

--0000000000003cb3a0058e7ff42f--