Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50674
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.42 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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ktROmXXoJLC1VRkkYt3iT6bpHGPjnyKKOEkU35KJZCnmiSNM1E07fMIsEGwPwjG0aK
         U0p1hIMIgSp9SwmhNepuu6CR6WWx2gmVekQi5BuEmTa6Uy8gP94RAo+wbUWReTfu/DVk
         tjMYxNcJLqHFcl70G9CU6FDC4gdceHF9Zr7tY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: djotto@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim3OeYZ4NFj4t=bCoitmgQYoCEh6mSs30hWQUp2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush>
	<AANLkTinp+QsgqM7rRUcC-RmrMYbgxQHc+DBiPUUxvq_y@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.vmvy9m0kidpuyk@cataphract>
	<4CF27AAC.9010704@divbyzero.net>
	<AANLkTikngNK=OaQEjW4TLna8jUhYitdQQW3aJPLEg9AC@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF28CFC.2060204@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim3OeYZ4NFj4t=bCoitmgQYoCEh6mSs30hWQUp2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 22:51:47 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimk66nz_9yczbNP7QQFvYvMSFjUc7DPuiECZPwf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dallas Gutauckis <dallas@gutauckis.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations
From: phpmail@jawbone.freeserve.co.uk (David Otton)

2010/11/28 Dallas Gutauckis <dallas@gutauckis.com>:

> I understand the concern from above, but I don't agree with it
> fundamentally. The kind of practice suggested by this search mechanic tel=
ls
> me that either there is lack of or little documentation, and lack of or
> little understanding of the codebase in which the code resides thereby
> making this argument flawed based solely on the assumption that the major=
ity
> of code is (or should be) poorly maintained/documented.

Yes. Absolutely. The majority of code /is/ poorly maintained and
documented. I work with scrappy codebases that have seen dozens of
devs over their lifetimes, and this patch removes one of the few
certainties - that 'grep "function X"' is absolutely the fastest way
to find the place where X is declared. I'm not an internals guy, so I
can't vote, but I will ask you to reconsider this one.

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?=C2=A0This would allow those who want to use=
 it the
> option of using it and would not break existing code.

My worry is that the last-guy-but-five used the new syntax and now I
have to apply a fix to his code. Yeah, I'll find the function on my
second/third attempt, but it is an impediment.