Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50648
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.123 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4CF231F8.5090104@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:42:00 +0100
Organization: SugarCRM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>
CC: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush> <61577946-B04E-4218-82A0-5157ADC96102@roshambo.org>
In-Reply-To: <61577946-B04E-4218-82A0-5157ADC96102@roshambo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev)

Hi!

> Sorry for moving offtopic, but if the PHP syntax is going to change
> then we should revisit other proposals that add/change syntax. For
> example, I think the short syntax for arrays was declined [from 5.3]
> mainly because it introduced a new syntax at a time we wanted to
> preserve BC:

I find it fascinating that a short time ago the short array
syntax and other like proposals were unanimously rejected with "PHP
needs no syntax sugar, everything should be explicit and verbose!" and
now it's complete reversal - everybody supports syntax sugar, adding new
complex syntax and what not.

I personally am not sure this thing is worth doing, I never had a 
problem with typing "function" but if so many people do, maybe it's OK 
for a major version release.
-- 
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227