Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77761
Return-Path: <ingwie2000@googlemail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 88741 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2014 17:57:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2014 17:57:33 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ingwie2000@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ingwie2000@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ingwie2000@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.170 mail-lb0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.217.170] ([209.85.217.170:58974] helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id F7/9D-10205-C83EE245 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:57:32 -0400
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u10so1452844lbd.15
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
        bh=CyCYZGumcFkSrbSOF5cnKMqzMD+NWPCu6dDHuiE1YVQ=;
        b=xbwLLCTLLFsjmAXzCBBATzF8PTRl9ysfVQX02huVOLhjFOazzyap2ZKSO3QLNz2r5o
         8f8mb/ne1LekiJCUu3300WdDQTeoGjZ5cDTJwgldla0uG9g7+XsWVG/lldYTUcVkDSgn
         15ye+n5LlaAusMijsWlEs9kI0ynDDY7NXkzEak0Ne35m9QjUNIxm3fMLO/V6MEdzI31U
         pM8B1miSkeG2zblhhBurTEjRUYxcDoajvG0d/+Am/G+VQLy6wYAVGJRnth/FqhC9Q6jX
         u5m7e045Yf2A41PqTYm4EzIThY5442dRH+AOnW1O/p6bOWm9tAp9wIoN8083MrIzbYG7
         ooAg==
X-Received: by 10.112.63.70 with SMTP id e6mr7235675lbs.92.1412359048856;
        Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.200.103] (dslb-094-219-077-075.094.219.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [94.219.77.75])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ua3sm2907789lac.35.2014.10.03.10.57.27
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Nr52hnFofh6ZqnnavGXznjdMJhdwxgwwKKd=dAr+dY8Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:57:25 +0200
Cc: Thomas Gossmann <mail@gossimaniac.net>,
 internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9B6F1F10-7B1D-4FB0-A485-4F1C6202701C@googlemail.com>
References: <CAH-PCH5Ymv2LjXiTQwHGHEOSXV-9UbeQhd_krAphOgQ5c8cpFg@mail.gmail.com> <42.58.10205.32DCE245@pb1.pair.com> <CAFMT4Nr52hnFofh6ZqnnavGXznjdMJhdwxgwwKKd=dAr+dY8Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP7] Remove the function keyword from class methods?
From: ingwie2000@googlemail.com (Ingwie Phoenix)


Am 03.10.2014 um 19:38 schrieb Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>:

> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Thomas Gossmann =
<mail@gossimaniac.net>
> wrote:
>=20
>> Hey there,
>>=20
>> I'm just a php developer, thus not even having a php.net account.
>>=20
>> I was wondering if it is possible to deprecate/remove the function =
keyword
>> from class methods in php7 or at least make it optional when one of =
the
>> visibility keywords is present?
>>=20
>> I feel like writing a completely unnecessary keyword each time I =
write a
>> new method for a class.
>>=20
>> I guess this was a discussion earlier, though I wasn't able to find
>> anything about it. Would love to hear, what pdt-internals (re-)think =
about
>> that topic.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> gossi
>=20
>=20
> Removing the function keyword makes it more difficult for people to =
find
> method definitions. This has historically been a significant factor in =
why
> this hasn't been done.
>=20
> Also, what does this change actually bring to the table? There is no =
actual
> benefit to the language or tooling; in fact it probably makes the =
tooling
> more difficult. All this means is that the user types the function =
keyword
> less and saves a very, very small amount of time.
>=20
> In summary, historically we have felt that the benefits do not =
outweigh the
> drawbacks.


I usually just observe on this list, but this is a topic I have come =
across myself.

PHP has followed the C++ syntax, and logical scoping like namespace,s =
since a long time - if not, eversince. C++ does not use a function =
keyword by itself, and even lesser visibility keywords as PHP does.

I find it rather ugly seeing =84public function foo()=93 everywhere, =
when everybody knows that parantheses mean function. So, I see =
readability as a plus.

<?php class Foo {
    public bar($a, $b) { return $a+$b; }
} ?>

It actually is not a drawback, but rather an enhancement that would =
increase PHP=92s readability, in my opinion. It could be introduced as =
=84syntactic shuggar=93, where people can, but dont have to, use the =
function keyword. For the lexer, this just seems to be one more if().

I don=92t see a lot of evolution in PHP lately, so something small as =
this might be pretty nice! :)=