Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50649
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.83.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=kBCr/CrIouOWJAsSSJrXGxvlT9GmyV4l//5IJU4lVvk/3nsASDCZS0REZv+i4OOojg
         WAgpgK1XurXqy4ZZfjuK4rwMhTpGDOahtlIwbrzuIlJHFzb/qpsDEpva4iQJPsIMusea
         OGrvaIvLKb9LZFg9yZM40r2qlOeTx2LVkLW5I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4CF231F8.5090104@sugarcrm.com>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
	<61577946-B04E-4218-82A0-5157ADC96102@roshambo.org>
	<4CF231F8.5090104@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:11:04 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi==59UM8gkP8XDGx0LJPK0Ro7dutsCefsNHJRuG@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Philip Olson <philip@roshambo.org>, PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630f5fbf3bfb304961b0282
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--00163630f5fbf3bfb304961b0282
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wro=
te:

> 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 majo=
r
> version release.
>

the answer is simple: The people who usually reject the proposals with that
reason are:
Johannes Schl=C3=BCter
Derick Rethans
Richard Lynch
Lester Caine
and you Stas :)

sorry if I wrong somewhere, I've just putting this list from my memory,
because I can't search in google or gmail for +1/-1, maybe it would be a
good thing, to put together a little statistic from the mailing list to sho=
w
things like: who are the most active in the votes, who avarage vote by
person, etc.

ps: I didn't want to offend anybody, so I'm sorry if I did.

Tyrael

--00163630f5fbf3bfb304961b0282--