Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91299 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16102 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2016 23:19:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2016 23:19:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tpunt@hotmail.co.uk; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tpunt@hotmail.co.uk; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.co.uk designates 157.55.2.94 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tpunt@hotmail.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 157.55.2.94 dub004-omc4s19.hotmail.com Received: from [157.55.2.94] ([157.55.2.94:58475] helo=DUB004-OMC4S19.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 65/B4-27267-C8156C65 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:19:41 -0500 Received: from DUB129-W7 ([157.55.2.71]) by DUB004-OMC4S19.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:19:37 -0800 X-TMN: [7L3ICTKJFDxzRAOrsW/AYeFmmZWkkb4v] X-Originating-Email: [tpunt@hotmail.co.uk] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_ba962e0b-dc28-4ced-8ffe-60bdf9ac20e7_" To: Colin O'Dell , "internals@lists.php.net" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:19:37 +0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: ,<20.E2.62769.79C16C65@pb1.pair.com>, MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2016 23:19:37.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5F00C20:01D16AA2] Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC Proposal] var keyword deprecation/removal From: tpunt@hotmail.co.uk (Thomas Punt) --_ba962e0b-dc28-4ced-8ffe-60bdf9ac20e7_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi!=0A= =0A= > I do have a general question about these types of changes: if the=0A= > deprecation were to land in 7.1=2C when would the actual removal take pla= ce -=0A= > 7.2 or 8.0? Or would that be a voting option?=0A= =0A= It would have to be done in 8.0=2C since removing it would constitute a BC = break.=0A= =0A= It's worth noting that there were better reasons for deprecating PHP 4-styl= e=0A= constructors over the simple redundancy argument. Specifically=2C there was= =0A= confusion as to when a PHP 4-style constructor would actually be=0A= considered a constructor (see the RFC [1] for examples). With the var=0A= keyword=2C there's no ambiguity like this.=0A= =0A= Whilst the language purist in me would like to remove redundant things like= =0A= this=2C I feel that it's a rather unnecessary BC break to introduce. So I'm= not=0A= entirely decided on this.=0A= =0A= Thanks=2C=0A= Tom=0A= =0A= [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove_php4_constructors = --_ba962e0b-dc28-4ced-8ffe-60bdf9ac20e7_--