Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49997 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15999 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2010 07:09:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Oct 2010 07:09:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain naenius.com designates 83.96.159.14 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mike.vanriel@naenius.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.96.159.14 linux35.webawere.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [83.96.159.14] ([83.96.159.14:52867] helo=linux35.webawere.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 33/23-31541-B94CBCC4 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:09:16 -0400 Received: from 84-107-107-216.dsl.quicknet.nl ([84.107.107.216] helo=[192.168.1.102]) by linux35.webawere.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PC5YU-0000Np-UG; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:08:47 +0200 To: Sebastian Bergmann In-Reply-To: <4CCBBC88.5000904@php.net> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7E18) References: <4CCB6B21.1070708@codeangel.org> <8757232E56758B42B2EE4F9D2CA019C904CC19@US-EX2.zend.net> <4CCBBC88.5000904@php.net> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7E18) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:09:50 +0200 Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" X-Antivirus-Web-Oke.nl: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] rename T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM to T_DOUBLE_COLON From: mike.vanriel@naenius.com (Mike Van Riel) On 30 okt 2010, at 08:34, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > On 10/30/2010 11:53 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> I would prefer this was not changed. > > +1 (for the same reasons) > I agree with Andi, Rasmus and the other people in favor. This token name is part of the history of PHP and adds to it's uniqueness. But besides this: renaming the constant is probably not going to solve the problem (at least not anytime soon). Changing this constant would mean breaking BC (some people using the tokenizer extension might use it) and thus officially it should only be implemented in PHP-next. This means that the support requests will be coming in for a long time as it not even planned for release or anything. Suppose that this rename would happen in the next minor release: most shared hosts lag immensily with their installed PHP version and I reckon most questions come from inexperienced / starting developers working with / on said hosts. And this means it will again take a long time before you notice any effect. (not to mention that Linux distros also lag). (additionally I wonder why people ask such a simple question on IRC whilst googling provides your answer faster..) Bottom line: I'd opt for keeping it. Kind regards, Mike van Riel