Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50650
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 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=EbKXaeqGCfYTe7MqW2U20LrUnZjc146C5TC9/EG+wW3HUmat8MHFWMoi7BD7BzawuN
         uX52DEvHfoJkXGaHAOgkmFSfdYdvLJWdagBPSEJOXIztGra40J5LF4FNsUUTqW2+jdMO
         Jc5OkOkdtNutyNWREf59TRXEOIbGCrSJ5Hw3g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi==59UM8gkP8XDGx0LJPK0Ro7dutsCefsNHJRuG@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
	<61577946-B04E-4218-82A0-5157ADC96102@roshambo.org>
	<4CF231F8.5090104@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTi==59UM8gkP8XDGx0LJPK0Ro7dutsCefsNHJRuG@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:11:49 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=NkeABp8aAmVaau7-x+Gv8Yajnm3xSckR6Aixs@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=001636b42dd7a244b504961b052b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001636b42dd7a244b504961b052b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <info@tyrael.hu> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>w=
rote:
>
>> 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 proble=
m
>> with typing "function" but if so many people do, maybe it's OK for a maj=
or
>> version release.
>>
>
> the answer is simple: The people who usually reject the proposals with th=
at
> 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 s=
how
> 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
>

ahh, I did forget to add Zeev to the list. :)

Tyrael

--001636b42dd7a244b504961b052b--