Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40395
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.44.28 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=BZhJ9G1ikbpbsrNxJNZN1CJgdrDlQeEfrAVAwJtXMkpmCMGlgIcEfealKlnkG1oYl+
         /pBKxNHnDzQ4VtIKFw98cGiBLBRG+9hpTKIkTARXK+WnrqPpiXGOrjMrJXot9M7dNzO0
         zgNgy8UxaD5UaULkkSwxPK7YKcajyUdFbuvT4=
Message-ID: <2dedb8a0809082314x5d3b5ddaj28138058eaba0158@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:14:47 +0200
To: "Lester Caine" <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Cc: "PHP internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <48C6120E.6020606@lsces.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2273_5616319.1220940887638"
References: <48C5F612.6090001@lsces.co.uk> <48C60671.4040608@chiaraquartet.net>
	 <48C6120E.6020606@lsces.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: 5.3 Backwards Compatibility
From: kalle.php@gmail.com ("Kalle Sommer Nielsen")

------=_Part_2273_5616319.1220940887638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Lester

2008/9/9 Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>

> Greg Beaver wrote:
>
>> Hi Lester,
>>
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>>> While I have loaded 5.3.? changing any of my existing code base to
>>> remove warnings is not likely to happen any time soon since
>>> compatibility with users who are still running older versions of PHP
>>> still needs to be maintained.
>>>
>>> I've got http://wiki.php.net/doc/scratchpad/upgrade/53 which seems to be
>>> currently the only reference to changes? But where do I find the detail
>>> on how things ARE currently implemented such as namespace and (fingers
>>> down throat) goto?
>>>
>>
>> the manual is ridiculously up to date, and is the best reference
>> location for new features.  Occasionally things are documented within
>> seconds of commit and in one case *prior* to commit.  It's frightening
>> what they do :).
>>
> Trying to follow on from 'scratchpad' using php.net search
> namespace - not found - AH - namespaces ...


I guess an alias could be made for that if its that big a need :)


>
> goto not found
> Closure - not found


These things are currently on the documentation team's todo after the alpha
releases
as far as Im aware of.


>
> Don't have time to spend hours finding the information. It takes long
> enough to create a safe environment to copy things to.
>
>  Another major concern here since maintaining BC with *PHP4* is still an
>>> unfortunate current requirement in the field is what happens when PEAR
>>>
>> <snip>
> OK usual thing :( - not my problem
> But in order to TEST PHP5.3 one needs a complete set of packages used WITH
> ones application - without damaging the working copies of PHP and this is
> easier if one CAN simply create a working set of files without having to
> monitor downloads. Some key features that were available in PHP seem only to
> be available in PEAR now :(
>
>  I get the distinct impression that those pushing for PHP5.3 are simply
>>> not making a good case for many of us to even want to follow them down
>>> that path? It almost feels like this is a DIFFERENT path to the main
>>> stream of PHP6 which many of us are much more desperate to be testing in
>>> the field, which seems to have become an ignored backwater? Key elements
>>> which have been flagged to PHP6 ( such as BIGINT ) are on hold while new
>>> concepts which were not part of the PHP6 reoadmap have been forced
>>> through? Since current hardware *IS* 64 bit, actually handling 64 bit
>>> numbers properly would be nice :)
>>>
>>
>> I think I have made an excellent case for the things that I care about
>> in 5.3.
>>
> Making a case that you like something and convincing people that there is
> some point in our using it a different matter. I can see the reason for
> namespace, but I have yet to be convinced that the current implementation is
> not just a bodge job since there seems to be so many holes in it still :(
> I thought PHP5 OO was about creating and using classes to ring fence stuff
> so why do we now need to ring fence the ring fence? But of cause the main
> problem is that the major part of the PHP code base has to to be converted
> TO OO? So most stuff we are working with is simply not PHP5 friendly yet?
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> --
>  PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Kalle Sommer Nielsen

------=_Part_2273_5616319.1220940887638--