Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66224 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16607 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2013 23:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2013 23:08:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.131 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.131 smtp131.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.131] ([67.192.241.131:53648] helo=smtp131.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2B/29-10787-3EEEB215 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:08:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6DACB39813B; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:08:17 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp29.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 1E0FD398823; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:08:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <512BEEE0.4060408@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:08:16 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Weinand CC: PHP List Developers Mailing References: <512BA9A6.6030006@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow (...)->foo() expressions not only for `new` From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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 If it changes syntax, it's by definition a syntax change. It does not matter if you think it should be changed and if you think it's a bug, it still should be properly reviewed and approved. > 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. It's not stupid to have RFC for all syntax changes. This allows us to keep track of it and gives us venue that all involved (including tool makers, etc.) can follow and be reasonably sure they didn't miss syntax change because somebody considered it microscopic. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227