Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:67828 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1570 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2013 20:19:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jun 2013 20:19:52 -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 108.166.43.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.123 smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.123] ([108.166.43.123:50686] helo=smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 43/B3-18197-76BF9C15 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:19:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 85A601A00B7; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:19:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 5834E1A0131; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51C9FB61.3050903@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:19:45 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sherif Ramadan CC: Michael Wallner , Joost Koehoorn , "internals@lists.php.net" References: <4ED7146272E04A47B986ED49E771E347BB4DF6F235@Ikarus.ameusgmbh.intern> <51C9DED2.5080401@sugarcrm.com> <51C9F485.6050709@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: Announcing RFC 'Anonymous Catches' From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > If I'm to understand this RFC correctly, it is nothing more than a > random suggestion someone posed in the form of a tweet and the author is > saying why not add it since it's not hard to implement. So in summation Well, here we go - this is why not add it, because it makes working with such code harder without actually benefiting anybody. > So this entire discussion can be summed up nicely with "Let's make the > variable optional because... why not?". "Why not" is usually not a very good principle of language design, IMO. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227