Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50657
Return-Path: <felipensp@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 47811 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2010 15:12:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Nov 2010 15:12:58 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=felipensp@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=felipensp@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: felipensp@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.214.42 mail-bw0-f42.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.214.42] ([209.85.214.42:62185] helo=mail-bw0-f42.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id F0/34-16104-97172FC4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:12:57 -0500
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so3273954bwz.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:12:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to
         :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=hNQF6PkW05+JnPQnMSkcjay4gJbLh4j+7xiN/oV/ZZI=;
        b=S1oJlme+dYLdHgtNPGKJ5U4e7h/9bPMkhueWYUsVlRnnOTbW70qKZyZrVTO8zSaAR2
         wywXhFOskJpbryvCxWFlYRYk6MEPGH5Z7fhvIzN+FDTLJQca5fVD4LRO7CcpFcB0PIeU
         8m9UY4OQsmmXuaL5Ms+lFkW4ysecSYu4IXGZo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=AFDEkSw9s3fc0vA6KjpZ613auUPpvC7oKudXqqJaZKdvlXJgHZ5O5MrbuJcN85DGPT
         a+iNzHUbhjOPwIX8tGP6jFS/+lfcds+8X08TXvw2mUPid06v5DRzJx9tQxRw7OGE+R5D
         7DHqVbC8QRjTRo5JA89vneEitBZjWntiHQA+8=
Received: by 10.204.66.204 with SMTP id o12mr3861633bki.29.1290957174463; Sun,
 28 Nov 2010 07:12:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.52.146 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:12:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKqGy9a9ZjodpxqNi5y-niuyhnxUk24uLYF2SN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush> <AANLkTinp+QsgqM7rRUcC-RmrMYbgxQHc+DBiPUUxvq_y@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikKqGy9a9ZjodpxqNi5y-niuyhnxUk24uLYF2SN@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:12:34 -0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikZpD4zzdKB3G+rv_db2dd0ogN9FMbmy9jQhybh@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ross Masters <ross@php.net>
Cc: David Otton <phpmail@jawbone.freeserve.co.uk>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>, 
	PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d34bd8cdddae04961e6374
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: felipensp@gmail.com (Felipe Pena)

--001636d34bd8cdddae04961e6374
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

2010/11/28 Ross Masters <ross@php.net>

> From what I understand T_FUNCTION would be optional, rather than removed
> altogether, is this the case? This would allow those who want to use it the
> option of using it and would not break existing code.
>

Yes, exaclty...

-- 
Regards,
Felipe Pena

--001636d34bd8cdddae04961e6374--