Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71718 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 1734 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2014 08:47:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2014 08:47:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.204 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.204 mail4.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.204] ([217.147.176.204:55493] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FB/61-28363-E00C8E25 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:47:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 30889 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jan 2014 08:47:07 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 30880, pid: 30884, t: 0.0612s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO linux-dev4.lsces.org.uk) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 29 Jan 2014 08:47:07 -0000 Message-ID: <52E8C097.6080208@lsces.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:49:27 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 SeaMonkey/2.23 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] some thoughts about php 6 From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> . most of the functions are procedural and string/array/scalar >> >related. I would prefer to think about alternative solutions like the >> >NIkic's proposal using OO-like APIs. Keeps BC, brings cleaner APIs >> >into the game >> > > I agree it's nicer. > My only concern is that the same discussion was done about 10 years > ago and still don't have them. We may be able to clean up string/array > functions. However it seems odds are high that we still have live legacy > names around next 10 years or more especially in modules.. I think what is missing here is simply an identification on what names people think need changing? Certainly creating an alternative set of objects and leaving the 'non-OO' baggage alone would be a lot more practical longer term? The problem will be that some people will want a means of turning off the legacy stuff and I am not sure that is really practical? e_strict currently seems to be a millstone rather than a help, and unravelling the impact of that is something that is key to PHP6 even before looking at moving things forward. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk