Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77784
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <93.39.11734.D6B30345@pb1.pair.com>
References: <CAH-PCH5Ymv2LjXiTQwHGHEOSXV-9UbeQhd_krAphOgQ5c8cpFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<42.58.10205.32DCE245@pb1.pair.com>
	<1412444677.4712.3.camel@kuechenschabe>
	<93.39.11734.D6B30345@pb1.pair.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:10:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSzmzYUdBzacsZR3jBGqzCTVY_787vYLWZ93NBNiJoNO7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gossmann <mail@gossimaniac.net>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3319e0421ef0504a01fbf
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PHP7] Remove the function keyword from class methods?
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--001a11c3319e0421ef0504a01fbf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 4, 2014 11:24 AM, "Thomas Gossmann" <mail@gossimaniac.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Johannes, I slipped over it but would have never found the
discussion to it.
>
> I run over it and the summary is: Many people like it and those that
don't have brought arguments, that are present here again. The discussion
is almost 4 years old by now, and people are complaining over things
getting implemented in php back in time, which are now implemented and
turned out to be ok - I expect the same to happen with this idea.
> Main contra argument is, people are not able to grep for 'function *'
anymore, which I guess is a minority of people and they can write
themselves a shell-script which makes it possible to search for functions
again, so not a big deal. However, the more important statement behind this
is, who is the more important crowd of people that are targeted with
changes like these? Primary or secondary consumers?
> ... but see my other mail, which conatains answers.
>
> Though, I have one question left regarding the old rfc? Why it has been
gone inactive and basically slept since then?
>
> Thanks
> Thomas Gossmann
>
> Am 04.10.14 um 19:44 schrieb Johannes Schl=C3=BCter:
>
>> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 18:21 +0200, Thomas Gossmann wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Go to wiki.php.net/rfc look at the titles containing "function" and you
>> will see "Make T_FUNCTION in method declarations optional" which was
>> added by me. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function
>>
>> Since proposing I was convinced this wasn't good. Please bring new
>> arguments. Discussion was in this thread
>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/50628 (another viewer might be better
>> to find the ~64 followups)
>>
>> johannes
>>
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>

Summary thus far:

Pro:  Eliminating the function keyword is good because coding =3D=3D=3D
sculpting; "perfection" occurs when there's nothing left to remove.

Con:  It's completely unnecessary and would make it prohibitively difficult
to consistently locate subroutine declarations in a codebase.

I believe the cons vastly outweigh the pros in this case.  The function
keyword is a very good example of PHP's KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
philosophy.

But if you're serious about this, draft an RFC and we'll vote on it.  If
2/3 support your idea, it'll pass.

--Kris

--001a11c3319e0421ef0504a01fbf--