Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50809 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 29633 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2010 13:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Dec 2010 13:06:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 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: 209.85.215.170 mail-ey0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.170] ([209.85.215.170:38757] helo=mail-ey0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A8/68-15182-2C997FC4 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:06:11 -0500 Received: by eyf5 with SMTP id 5so4195254eyf.29 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:06:07 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BsX5xzYr/u1Tel3EuRJXPbKKzGiSyfd+OTC66BvyIKo=; b=pX+omW21bZ7gN6/84K5UVa16s51Xt5GJbDmWlknx06Imo38u1L0J1RpVqWzsRRENKe Ue/FNrZ92dpnOfSg9yHq8r8x24clH1MfBPxh42roB8vVjUr47gZp7W6H5qLGOij2ES5V u8OB8JiO6UXS4plAWc87uLu7q3jUWXQL2T084= 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=NNAQ1W2nACbYNFO/vVsajh9SJ1TbcPq9aDYpmPb8ICydfseRsEn/MuhvLNxG9Z8LXQ KlV5ajiv86D4ZaGfOFWpWy68bfiv4sPhhFnxbVqL437oVe0A8BuUwwAVpMIEi/EeV6Kv Dkde/E2GIcJVywvX8hvqIIaFHS6TAy1aZpBVc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.31.132 with SMTP id y4mr661312ebc.55.1291295167560; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:06:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com Received: by 10.213.4.201 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 05:06:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1290879624.7033.826.camel@guybrush> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:06:07 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2RV1Ev1hlCyMk7-HH5b4pp7fhZg Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIFLDuG1ja2U=?= Cc: Kalle Sommer Nielsen , =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= , PHP internals list 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: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT) 2010/12/2 Andr=C3=A9 R=C3=B8mcke : > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Patrick ALLAERT > wrote: >> Shouldn't we get rid of that kind of pre-PHP5 stuff _before_ >> introducing the possible omission of T_FUNCTION? > > Why? > This will break lots of code, does it improve anything while at it? Is 'v= ar' > hindering anything? Is it taking up a lot of code? > If it is removed then that should be in trunk aka "6.0" the 2nd , and not= in > 5.x. It should of course not appear in a 5.x release! But sounds like current trunk can't be anyway. +1 for removing T_VAR and making T_FUNCTION optional in a major release. -1 otherwise. --=20 Patrick Allaert --- http://code.google.com/p/peclapm/ - Alternative PHP Monitor