Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75173 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88213 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2014 18:20:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jul 2014 18:20:23 -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 108.166.43.83 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.83 smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.83] ([108.166.43.83:40244] helo=smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 01/58-47713-56D44B35 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:20:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AF814180446; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:20:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp11.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 4C1191814E4; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53B44D62.4090308@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:20:18 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lazare Inepologlou , Nikita Popov CC: PHP internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [PHP 6] Uniform Variable Syntax From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > While this is very welcome, I was wandering if we could skip the extra > parenthesis, like this: > > $obj->closure() The would mean uniting the property and method namespaces on an object, which has pretty big implications and may lead to huge BC issues. I'd rather not go there, it'd require serious change of the whole object model. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/