Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85362 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27401 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2015 12:40:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Mar 2015 12:40:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:20758] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F2/61-18917-4C66D055 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:40:38 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D564B0026; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:39:08 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Nathan wesley'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:40:25 +0100 Message-ID: <011c01d063d4$34b4dff0$9e1e9fd0$@php.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJ0U/6rqO3FVP5oK2SGL8/QaQsyz5ve/ZBw Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150320-1, 20/03/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?RE:_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_Ten_years_estimate?= =?UTF-8?Q?d_Plan_to_replace_PHP=E2=80=99s_inconsis?= =?UTF-8?Q?tent_API?= From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : Nathan wesley [mailto:nathan.o.wesley@gmail.com] >=20 > The old API should be deprecated in PHP 8.0 and removed completely in = PHP > 9.0 (finally) That's totally unrealistic. The old API will remain forever (well, we'll = examine the case again in 20 years...). I had planned to propose something for 7.0 but I didn't have enough = time. > I hope that you take this seriously and tell me if there are any > limitations that prevents this from happening. I think that, while attractive, using the same syntax for object methods = and scalar 'pseudo-'methods is too ambiguous. We just need to solve two = issues : intuitive order of arguments and nested call readability. We = don't need to implement the whole OO stuff for scalars. Except this = detail, no limitation IMO. Regards Fran=C3=A7ois