Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50801 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 94041 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2010 09:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Dec 2010 09:34:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.42 mail-ew0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.42] ([209.85.215.42:37982] helo=mail-ew0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 17/42-15182-C2867FC4 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:34:37 -0500 Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so4119141ewy.29 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:34:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1OW1xKu0OtMxCCRBVH1lN/FLceO/t1yulckOiB91ybE=; b=j9/laS7jc9htqZ4SKvufKzIxu0Hr5NRlqpdE1yPPeD0hQXZhSpC/IUIUVBH20E4M+X nvGPehsPcKnlyuSTNARkamvwb+5NZXPXJ3VjY9AAHdQ2JpwxZU5UtgLV30o08F2LAkZC rPbZbF/jS2xLUeiocnS6o2ygm83862KtDGGMc= 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=dqh5nEENHggC9K5p0fOvV98xo7gxOVIpUNS3IMu9tUTocIb5nXe7u2CcU3c9g/54IQ aASvLM0G3LdL9WkhfVHZMvHMjSbPFZvKbp+k5/UW84HxVjkLf+tnZsUSinZLgcl/bUFD NLbavtHQRLdPPbPRzl8SbP63DNBSZN7Zt7LXE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.15.132 with SMTP id k4mr2021474eba.94.1291282473655; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:34:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com Received: by 10.213.4.201 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 01:34:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:34:33 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4W53X0ABTxlOlUS6H09z6KzlNUE Message-ID: To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen , =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= Cc: PHP internals list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT) 2010/11/30 Kalle Sommer Nielsen : > Hi > > 2010/11/30 Patrick ALLAERT : >> With this patch, something looks inconsistent to me: >> Both properties and methods have a visibility >> (public|protected|private) and a keyword: "var" (T_VAR) and "function" >> (T_FUNCTION) respectively. >> However "private var $foo;" generates a fatal error but "private >> function foo(){}" not? > > The "var" keyword is an alias of the "public" keyword for BC with > PHP4. So it would be illogically to declare a property both private > and public at the same time ;-) Shouldn't we get rid of that kind of pre-PHP5 stuff _before_ introducing the possible omission of T_FUNCTION? Patrick