Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116257 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45102 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2021 16:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2021 16:02:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770881801FD for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com (mail-wr1-f43.google.com [209.85.221.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id m22so47875294wrb.0 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=5Qzt2/fRbosQtGHExzgV3qRcOphykyoIJyrVIbUeG0c=; b=C+3rdiW7g6MGTk9E3P+bEKpFCdOXuEtJHAdQhHCIaKf8ECwl3BAJVrh8ZfS+ziTiI4 Uj3XbqYXniRuSHdvL7keJ75M2son0thvaTV+4EwEOZaCZwSMcY2fKP5ZZIZPDUXZDhuq rkMexUav7X+wvMrlxOXLfw14Xziv9v8ktXBPxxF+hXpb16yzOv7AloUToqvl3qLL9iBw PfnK8kkLGiVDLDhT1Q/UFgN10JVeonAMwuT3d1+L9KhWeeVwfkbhafXnfns/duVwX5r/ KEMbEGrWy/P+vtTigEKwNG67D4Qc0X+NSM5xFR8b1k0+slNthI4JkPykiKpSOxwCh1op wxnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=5Qzt2/fRbosQtGHExzgV3qRcOphykyoIJyrVIbUeG0c=; b=uUXUiBm4VT+KIIpILT7TK3y06WLN1mZLfr0A3P4xYoQZs7aBi5+UOK+QBftqR323+O +1Ekys5b9viJTW9y81rRI1ajg/cqyTYCzPWzLkC3s/6ZHeA/Sc9QVprljf9iSBeT/9SI o8xNYpoNitWC2vXVCtFePaLLzJroKhmqhlLE6dwtHLmW+TtwsSRNN+5FeB9x0UiZjqx0 L/0dmCiOPocoQ0YhxZPJ9EUzWsaeits98egsmDkI4x+GV0sLkD88cTr33DWXbARArAGU 3tjdAJOn7dBy1zJWZrUXPnIybZtxnemgNeZBkp+IzRxriF5WXyysbaqZKTPLPB/S6Dv1 JQmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HM+b6Dz/QppVeS7IiSroOYNSTT/otaqzfmYwxkIySSjMctN3J L96sP0uh/RElmvKJ/dH5aIVEyxp8+xA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvJDnz0ks/mNLpxlmGMiq1wlsDovB0Ji3VYaY6Md6j8taXZMRM/Ia/6GIJWTkp8ntRK8Jc+w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:15c6:: with SMTP id y6mr18547546wry.382.1633884495249; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u5sm5463813wmm.39.2021.10.10.09.48.14 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <29103CC9-22A5-4507-A982-CFFC20450435@newclarity.net> <69E1836C-EAEF-442A-AEE1-5D3089EE179D@newclarity.net> Message-ID: <1d95bf04-6cd7-3355-96d2-29715c2d5b99@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 17:48:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <69E1836C-EAEF-442A-AEE1-5D3089EE179D@newclarity.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Function list declaration syntax? From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 09/10/2021 10:41, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Besides, your alternative is a bit reductio ad absurdum. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Dan's example is the first three lines of yours, written as currently valid PHP, and seems a reasonable comparison of how much the new syntax would save. If anything, it's your choice of example that exaggerates things - it's not that frequent that you have such a long list of methods, all returning the same type, and all with a hard-coded return value. >> rather than modify the language. > You state this without justification that it has been established that changing the language is a bad thing. If that were true, why does the RFC process even exist as in most cases RFCs are passed to change the language? That's not what Dan meant at all; he said that changing (or simply ignoring) coding standards is easier than changing the language. There's also the very real possibility of having to do both: the new syntax is added, but the authors of your favoured coding standard decide to discourage its use, and you're back at square one. All that said, you're not the first to point out that PHP's method syntax is more verbose than many; so far though, nobody has managed to get enough consensus behind any alternative, as with Larry's RFC that you mentioned. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]