Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49291 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81767 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2010 22:47:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Aug 2010 22:47:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:56721] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 75/06-61991-007D16C4 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:47:28 -0400 Received: from relay8.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay8.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4881140165; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay8.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id E918340115; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C61D6FB.6030108@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:47:23 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9oYW5uZXMgU2NobMO8dGVy?= CC: Kalle Sommer Nielsen , Internals , Derick Rethans References: <1281478269.6608.292.camel@guybrush> In-Reply-To: <1281478269.6608.292.camel@guybrush> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Annoucing PHP 5.4 Alpha 1 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > For the record: I consider the current implementation as (one of) the > biggest mistakes in the last ten years. I agree completely. The fact that obvious absence of consensus is ignored and we are releasing feature that clearly has no consensus behind it as a part of an official release - when we have killed much lesser things for much lesser reasons - I think it is a very bad development. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227