Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50642
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain naenius.com designates 83.96.159.14 as permitted sender)
To: =?utf-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
In-Reply-To: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
Message-ID: <01CEF2CA-065B-47E6-987F-4FB98B9A6F88@naenius.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7E18)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 22:58:51 +0100
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
X-Antivirus-Web-Oke.nl: Seems clean.  You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: mike.vanriel@naenius.com (Mike Van Riel)

On 27 nov 2010, at 18:40, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter =
<johannes@schlueters.de> =20
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the =20
> "function"
> keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
> declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it is =20=

> not
> needed by the parser to prevent conflicts, I therefore propose the
> following RFC incl. patch to allow writing
>
>        class Foo {
>            public bar() {
>                echo "Hello World";
>            }
>        }
>
> Without T_FUNCTION token. In my opinion an access modifier /public,
> private protected, static, final) should still be required for keeping
> readability.
>
> RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function
> Patch: http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/=20
> zend_optional_t_function.diff
>

FWIW: +1

Though I do have two questions regarding behaviour:
I am currently working on a documentation generator (DocBlox) which =20
uses the tokenizer to analyze sourcefiles. The T_FUNCTION token is a =20
clear sign for me that I am dealing with a method (as the visibility =20
token can also be used with properties).
With this patch I will loose this recognition point and the first =20
solution that comes to mind is to search for () or arguments. This =20
sounds rather hackish to me, might I be missing a solution?

Another question is: when would you like to have this released? PHP-=20
next? (thus either 5.4, 6, 7 or whichever is next?).

Thank you!

--=20
Kind regards,

Mike van Riel=20=