Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49113 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73323 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2010 23:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2010 23:52:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=davey@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=davey@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 207.97.245.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: davey@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.183 smtp183.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.183] ([207.97.245.183:46453] helo=smtp183.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9D/C9-18391-EA9D84C4 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:52:14 -0400 Received: from relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 041C11B4097; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay28.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: davey-AT-pixelated-dreams.com) with ESMTPSA id DE6701B4017; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:52:11 -0400 (EDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A306) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <730E72B7-B2C3-4FF9-8138-F04659ECDB56@php.net> Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A306) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:51:10 -0400 To: Karoly Negyesi Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Remove variable function and method calls From: davey@php.net (Davey Shafik) You can call classname::$foo() and even $obj->$foo() with call_user_func(), s= hould we get rid of those too? I grant you that variable function calls are sometimes confusing, lambda fun= ctions are a better way to do it perhaps, but just because something can be a= bused, doesn't mean it should be removed, unless it's impeding further innov= ation (a la namespaced old style constructors). - Davey On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Given that call_user_func exists I would recommend to remove $foo() > from PHP Next. >=20 > Observe the "logic" in the following examples: >=20 > $foo(); > new $foo(); > classname::$foo; > classname::$foo(); >=20 > There is a word for this and that word is madness. >=20 > The simplest is to nuke $foo(). call_user_func() is a perfect replacement.= >=20 > Regards >=20 > Karoly Negyesi >=20 > --=20 > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >=20