Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79042
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1416476628.15061.4.camel@kuechenschabe>
References: <CAFMT4NpJxuuqc-wTr1aE4K+wZBT8+04j+9-SsY+nhUMU83fDUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<546C9E22.6090301@fedoraproject.org>
	<20141119134632.GV2294@phcomp.co.uk>
	<546CA8C0.1060707@gmail.com>
	<20141119143329.GX2294@phcomp.co.uk>
	<1416476628.15061.4.camel@kuechenschabe>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:11:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NoHNKHmck_rkAEWo9zx8A1Z5d_pTtaC+jOGXqV7SxkUAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Johannes_Schl=C3=BCter?= <johannes@schlueters.de>
Cc: Alain Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Remove PHP 4 Constructors
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Johannes Schl=C3=BCter
<johannes@schlueters.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 14:33 +0000, Alain Williams wrote:
>> How many servers are stuck on PHP 4 ?
>>
>> Of those 'stuck' servers, how many have applications still under active
>> development ?
>>
>> The point is: how many people would get annoyed if PEAR stopped supporti=
ng PHP 4 ?
>
> The point about breaking this is *not* PHP 4 compatibility but
> compatibility between PECL packages. The name of the constructor method
> is part of the API.
>
> Think about code like this in module A:
>
>    class A_class {
>        function A_class() { }
>    }
>
> and then module B extending this:
>
>    class B_class  extends A_class {
>        function B_class() {
>            A_class();
>        }
>    }
>
> I also wonder how Andrea's tool handles more indirect cases (C_class
> extends B_class, while B_class has no ctor so C_class calls directly
> A_class's ctor)
>
> So I'm -1 on this.

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly: you are saying
you are voting no on this RFC because a tool, which is not part of
this RFC but we kindly provide, doesn't detect when a certain thing is
called?