Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66221 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11180 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2013 22:20:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2013 22:20:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.88 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.88 blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [65.55.111.88] ([65.55.111.88:14367] helo=blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DD/18-10787-7A3EB215 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:20:24 -0500 Received: from BLU0-SMTP89 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s13.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:20:20 -0800 X-EIP: [oEIVWnQFcg/7wq3vYe5R5i6sCMjS9pDL] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from bob-weinands-imac.fritz.box ([78.141.134.76]) by BLU0-SMTP89.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:20:19 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:20:16 +0100 CC: PHP List Developers Mailing Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <512BA9A6.6030006@oracle.com> To: Sara Golemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2013 22:20:19.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B96B570:01CE13A6] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow (...)->foo() expressions not only for `new` From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) Am 25.2.2013 um 23:07 schrieb Sara Golemon : >> (For me, it's changes like Sara's trailing comma proposal that are too >> small to have needed an RFC) >> > When it comes to changing syntax, there is no such thing as too small > of an RFC IMO. Runtime changes can occasionally be hand-waved, but > syntax changes are serious business. > > -Sara Don't consider it as a syntax change, only as a bugfix. It must have been a bug, that this degree of conformity was not yet reached. :-P It's only stupid to vote about such microscopic changes as long as there are no real arguments against it in the discussion preceding the implementation. Bob