Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77785
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 92100 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2014 22:27:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 4 Oct 2014 22:27:46 -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 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ingwie2000@googlemail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.45 mail-la0-f45.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.215.45] ([209.85.215.45:62451] helo=mail-la0-f45.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id E4/5B-11734-C5470345 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 04 Oct 2014 18:27:41 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id q1so2693686lam.4
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:27:37 -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=zpsklOf0gtA3zNPprs5d12qCfoOXR5uEbH6uGm4xXf4=;
        b=Z0oAupEVgeRqPAQy7e+33fT+XJ6TjYZgJh1GqenPg6w1Fo4eAgamootcKP+yPRqrtu
         vVLMDN6lvu7IfUPPQrid2GMUqaPt6xgytp48mT2vkEhsQb28qTa6Q7gcrRo8Mb2nNLM9
         j2Rcnl8+RrKIHPnqb3H+hQDvoRlL/DFDX8l9z/R5qtjixsO+sXOwiZSaJr7upItmjWVX
         nBits8yZwkJqUKFQCwvPptKpch3Uljs9tCix6X8fC18HZ8YDSBSvtK2dq4lf6/rASRHz
         I5XYZO55wvKrzNEKkAx0T7jSQ7r1fY9Uu5U3suqveX0qvdnVljAlsKCiecc9/e7+IEb0
         J1Wg==
X-Received: by 10.112.125.131 with SMTP id mq3mr11286049lbb.20.1412461657365;
        Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.200.103] (dslb-088-068-178-155.088.068.pools.vodafone-ip.de. [88.68.178.155])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n4sm4137988lah.2.2014.10.04.15.27.33
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 04 Oct 2014 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSzmzYUdBzacsZR3jBGqzCTVY_787vYLWZ93NBNiJoNO7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 00:27:25 +0200
Cc: Thomas Gossmann <mail@gossimaniac.net>,
 PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <7DA156A5-783A-41DC-A9C8-8067EB0AAD9F@googlemail.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> <CAKOpQSzmzYUdBzacsZR3jBGqzCTVY_787vYLWZ93NBNiJoNO7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
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 05.10.2014 um 00:10 schrieb Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>:

> On Oct 4, 2014 11:24 AM, "Thomas Gossmann" <mail@gossimaniac.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Thanks Johannes, I slipped over it but would have never found the
> discussion to it.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Though, I have one question left regarding the old rfc? Why it has =
been
> gone inactive and basically slept since then?
>>=20
>> Thanks
>> Thomas Gossmann
>>=20
>> Am 04.10.14 um 19:44 schrieb Johannes Schl=FCter:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 18:21 +0200, Thomas Gossmann wrote:
>>>>=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
>>>=20
>>> 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
>>>=20
>>> 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)
>>>=20
>>> johannes
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>=20
>=20
> Summary thus far:
>=20
> Pro:  Eliminating the function keyword is good because coding =3D=3D=3D
> sculpting; "perfection" occurs when there's nothing left to remove.
- The function keyword does not comply to the fact that its used on =
class methods.
- It=92s a duplicate, when the parantheses already indicate a =
=84function=93.

>=20
> Con:  It's completely unnecessary and would make it prohibitively =
difficult
> to consistently locate subroutine declarations in a codebase.
- People can no longer use a simple grep command to pick up functions.
- IDE=92s will have to adapt to a longer search pattern.

>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> --Kris

Sorry, but if you summarize arguments, it=92d be only fair to read back =
and actually name as many as possible.

Not everybody can vote though, sadly. I still wish there was a way for =
non-devs to have a voice on feature votes.

Kind regards, Ingwie.=