Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40406
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain chiaraquartet.net from 208.83.222.18 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48C680B9.8020603@chiaraquartet.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:57:13 -0500
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070807)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
CC: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <48C5F612.6090001@lsces.co.uk> <48C60671.4040608@chiaraquartet.net> <48C6120E.6020606@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <48C6120E.6020606@lsces.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: 5.3 Backwards Compatibility
From: greg@chiaraquartet.net (Greg Beaver)

Lester Caine wrote:
> 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 :(

Lester I mean no disrespect to you with my next rather blunt comment: I
have absolutely no idea what key features you are talking about here.
If it is important, and the features really are missing, you have 2
recourses

1) do something
2) complain

Only 1 actually accomplishes anything.

>>> 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 was referring to ext/phar, but there is no way you could have known
that from my snide comment.  I was also referring to the multiple tweaks
to namespaces, as it is my personal quest to make them a little more
user-friendly (from my perspective) than they are right now.  I happen
to believe that a good feature doesn't *need* much advocacy beyond
documentation for people to use it, and both ext/phar and namespaces do
have documentation.  Of course, any problems found in the docs during
this alpha phase should immediately be reported at bugs.php.net where
they will be fixed (read: not here, where they create noise), including
abstract structural issues with the organization or confusing language.

> 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?

I can't answer to this point, as my assumption about PHP5 OO was that it
is about fixing some of the gotchas in PHP4 OO, not about shoehorning
everything in PHP to fit into the OO box.

Thanks,
Greg