Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66226 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19384 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2013 23:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Feb 2013 23:16:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 157.55.1.160 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 157.55.1.160 dub0-omc2-s21.dub0.hotmail.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [157.55.1.160] ([157.55.1.160:42707] helo=dub0-omc2-s21.dub0.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 50/D9-10787-4D0FB215 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:16:37 -0500 Received: from DUB403-EAS191 ([157.55.1.136]) by dub0-omc2-s21.dub0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:16:33 -0800 X-EIP: [vsKjqdiB8zRJxGidQ2u7/EDNCx2n26Qv] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) References: <512BA9A6.6030006@oracle.com> <512BEEE0.4060408@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <512BEEE0.4060408@sugarcrm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CC: "internals@lists.php.net" Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:16:33 +0100 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2013 23:16:33.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[26AB2270:01CE13AE] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow (...)->foo() expressions not only for `new` From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) Am 26.02.2013 um 00:08 schrieb "Stas Malyshev" : > Hi! >=20 >> 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 >> It's only stupid to vote about such microscopic changes as long as there a= re >> no real arguments against it in the discussion preceding the implementati= on. >=20 > 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. > --=20 > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 Ok, you are right. Even if I am not a fan of this bureaucracy, I see that th= is is useful and nescessary. I'll appreciate this in future. Bob