Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59673
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F849CEE.1040501@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:49:50 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Stockton <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>
CC: Luke Scott <luke@cywh.com>, 
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAORXhGJwmbjw3Zze3+-oFA2Mb_Z-2owVESraNMMs57RzjRRMbA@mail.gmail.com> <-5877502932356715576@unknownmsgid> <CAORXhGLPdAie6UFq+daJhUmDUqp7RaFFLa596XdzdtuCddf0Jw@mail.gmail.com> <-3647345967307864634@unknownmsgid> <CAORXhGKjg_L11dFGNHNfNygDH018=ZhytAy1vH+Ei8QHfry=cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAORXhG+K3XML-47+FDYdL5D717wDX7c59Pz8KgqjcP16+Ad12w@mail.gmail.com> <4F831FAE.2030208@ralphschindler.com> <CALKFbxvLfQTT+VX7-9O8nqekMcQUjkR7PRofpwFvjMdgdJUaWA@mail.gmail.com> <4F8336CA.6030800@gmail.com> <-3946312978847986790@unknownmsgid> <4F84587A.1090006@gmail.com> <CALKFbxtV994mg0i3EviG1JCzK9PZWN8O=wk6yYAJr4y6FwVcbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKFbxtV994mg0i3EviG1JCzK9PZWN8O=wk6yYAJr4y6FwVcbg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: source files without opening tag
From: keisial@gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel_Gonz=E1lez?=)

On 10/04/12 19:22, Chris Stockton wrote:
> Hello,
> I understand your point that you are trying to make, but forward
> compatibility I am not sure shares the same critical nature as
> backwards. 
Sure, but if we can help with that when designing the feature, that's
much better, and I think would also ecourage into using it.

> I think a software provider who is aiming at supporting a
> wide variety of php versions is likely going to code around the lowest
> common denominator.
If they can easily work around it, it's much easier they start using it soon
than waiting for when common web hostings stop providing 5.4.

>  Even still, if they chose to they could have two
> bootstrap files, one that included files with the new features and one
> with the old.
Of course, they still could, but is more troublesome. Specially if as you
suggest, they need to keep two files in sync. In that case it's probably
easier
to keep without the new features.