Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46427
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 88.198.8.16 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
In-Reply-To: <4B27DD0B.1070303@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:06:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6571303B-82D2-43E4-8550-E2B9420BA241@pooteeweet.org>
References: <4B01A4C2.8030602@gmx.net> <4B27DD0B.1070303@gmx.net>
To: Christian Seiler <chris_se@gmx.net>,
 internals Wonderland <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Closures and $this
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 15.12.2009, at 20:01, Christian Seiler wrote:

> Hello again,
>=20
>> Discuss away!
>=20
> I'm a little disappointed by the non-outcome of this debate. Very few
> people have responded and most of them seem to agree proposal (A) =
should
> be implemented, perhaps with the additional bind/bindTo as in my
> proposal and perhaps not.
>=20
> The problem here is: (A) was exactly the thing that was implemented =
and
> that people started to have a problem with as soon as the first or
> second beta of PHP 5.3 was released. And because the feedback came in =
so
> late, Lukas & Johannes decided to remove $this support from closures =
for
> PHP 5.3 in order to be able to decide that later on.
>=20
> So basically we're at the same point where we were a little more year
> ago: There's an RFC for this (the semantics of $this support were
> discussed in the original closures RFC!) and the people who read it on
> internals@ support it. However, I predict that if we implement exactly
> the semantics that the RFC proposes, we will get into the same
> discussion we had with PHP 5.3 just before the release of PHP 6... (or
> 5.4 should there be one).
>=20
> So: What now?


Call for a vote. This time around people cannot claim to not have had =
time to review the issue. Also back then we tried to play it safe =
because of the short time before we were to release. This time there is =
more time for this to mature if needed inside svn.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org