Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14586 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33080 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Feb 2005 19:29:08 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 30228 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2005 19:27:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Feb 2005 19:27:51 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.80.117.3 longsword.omniti.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([66.80.117.3:39167] helo=mail.omniti.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity HEAD (r4105:4106)) with SMTP id 40/34-10528-73B72024 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:27:51 -0500 DomainKey-Status: good DomainKey-Signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=test; d=omniti.com; h=Received:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer; b=LH1UhUt+1gckjbUn3WhJSH9XwhcqiZlSXVe2wDbNbYvJmKGQ4LoOEcXgT3rGXiN9 qBr4S1ieb+8KW4sGT4jwH+/CLtYCO62B2VTOFRC4F78AB11bx9uC7nXO9kNkYBag Received: from ([66.80.117.2:55968] helo=[10.80.116.150]) by mail.omniti.com (ecelerity HEAD) with SMTP id FC/BC-22836-A2B72024 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:27:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <00dd01c50a22$523a3780$0300000a@pc> References: <00dd01c50a22$523a3780$0300000a@pc> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: George Schlossnagle , internals@lists.php.net Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:26:01 -0500 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Terje_Sletteb=F8?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.1 From: george@omniti.com (George Schlossnagle) On Feb 3, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Terje Sletteb=F8 wrote: > Hm, I'm surprised by this response from someone who's name I recognise=20= > as an > active PHP contributor. The answer strikes me as either arrogant = and/or > ignorant (note: I'm not saying you are that, but that's how the reply=20= > comes > across, given what what operator overloading is about). As I've=20 > pointed out > in other postings in this thread, operator overloading is about much=20= > more > than "just" "syntactic sugar". In C++, for example, it enables=20 > important > things such as function objects (being able to pass an object to a=20 > function, > for example, and have it behave as a function, enabling functional > programming, as well). This is not possible (possibly without jumping > through major hoops) in PHP. That's because functions are not first-class objects in PHP. You can=20 do this same thing in straight C without operator overloading. While=20 I'm happy (for you) that you like operator overloading, the view that=20 it is inherently evil and leads to obtuse, magical code is not=20 relegated to us PHP luddites. These ideas have all been discussed in=20 depth long before you appeared on the scene to decry our lack of=20 interest in 'evolving' the language to your liking. George