Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40982 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 42984 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2008 12:47:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Oct 2008 12:47:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=et@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=et@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 62.75.137.136 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: et@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.75.137.136 fuer-et.de Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [62.75.137.136] ([62.75.137.136:49107] helo=eve.fuer-et.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 73/BA-25867-6C494F84 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:47:03 -0400 Received: from lapalma.mis.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de (lapalma.mis.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de [130.83.165.195]) by eve.fuer-et.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFFC158404 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:47:00 +0200 (CEST) To: internals@lists.php.net Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:46:58 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <3CF765DF-27AF-44FD-9ECF-BEBFC8A0AFCA@pooteeweet.org> <1223973712.7708.10.camel@stephane-dell> <014401c92df5$e70d8470$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> In-Reply-To: <014401c92df5$e70d8470$3ffc1f3e@foxbox> X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.mis.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/People/walk/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200810141446.59121.et@php.net> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3 From: et@php.net (Stefan Walk) On Tuesday 14 October 2008 14:10:50 Steph Fox wrote: > I'm +1 on ripping out and leaving til 6.0. I don't think there is enough > time between now and the 5.3.0 code freeze to make major changes to the > language syntax. Major changes like ripping the feature that most people are looking forward to in 5.3 out? > Making -> do double duty and adding E_STRICT messages to > currently legal code really doesn't look like a good option to me, much > less during a point release and even less during the final moments of a > release cycle. That E_STRICT was proposed for 6, not for 5.3, and is not a requirement - and about "double duty", it's not really unintuitive to reference to "members" of classes the same way you reference to "members" of instances. > 'An announcement has been done on php.net' simply isn't a good enough > reason to screw up the language; we can write new announcements and even > explanations. And we already have *most* of a working implementation in > 6.0, so it's not like ripping it out of 5.3 means starting over from > scratch. I would love to see the public reaction to those "new announcements and explanations", so in a way it's a win-win situation for me. Regards, Stefan