Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91495
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <12.FB.08749.AF759D65@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <1F.91.55238.41F10D65@pb1.pair.com> <CAHvhOfhYpnjkSjuo09TY7irhgW5UxNYZcWqtAr0iCcUAqJUgqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKnqCEY7art1GUWG=Pm0wyPGQmYp0Dq8oxdohgBkSGq+O_BTZw@mail.gmail.com> <FA.10.10408.29514D65@pb1.pair.com> <56D42CD3.6020602@gmail.com> <DB.E1.07778.3D165D65@pb1.pair.com> <56D57DF4.8000906@gmail.com> <56D5D2AD.6070805@gmail.com> <56D5DDA6.4080607@fleshgrinder.com> <40.73.36499.548B6D65@pb1.pair.com> <56D6BBD0.5010505@gmail.com> <56D73386.3000903@fleshgrinder.com> <86.68.21983.A2508D65@pb1.pair.com> <56D86C00.6000904@fleshgrinder.com>
In-Reply-To: <56D86C00.6000904@fleshgrinder.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:39:54 -0000
Lines: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Proposal] var keyword deprecation/removal
From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston")

wrote in message news:56D86C00.6000904@fleshgrinder.com...
>
>On 3/3/2016 10:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>> If you want to avoid such confusion over alias names then surely that
>> would be an argument against introducing aliases in the first place. In
>> this case the short array syntax would never have been introduced as the
>> (only slightly longer) long array syntax had already existed since day 
>> #1.
>
>No, that is not what one should conclude from it. Short array syntax was
>added by popular demand

Really? Exactly how many of the millions of PHP developers out there voted 
for this change?

> and hence for a very good reason. The fact that
>there are no plans regarding the old syntax and thus keeping the
>duplication indefinitely is the actual problem.

Is it actually a "problem"? How many books and articles on PHP programming 
are out there which use the "old" syntax? How much confusion would it cause 
if the "old" and well known syntax were to be dropped? How many applications 
would suddenly stop working? How much effort would be required in userland 
to fix this state of affairs? How many swear words would these userland 
developers have for the language developers? There are NO sideeffects of 
leaving aliases in the language. It would take NO effort to leave them in, 
but it would take effort to take them out which includes updating immense 
volumes of documentation. The only "problem" is that it offends the delicate 
sensibilities of a few "purist" developers who cannot understand the 
difference between improving the language and breaking it.

>Change for the sake of change is bad, no argument there. Change for the
>sake of progress is not and totally normal.

Only if it results in an actual and measurable improvement. Changes for 
"purity" or "consistency" do NOT fall into this category.

-- 
Tony Marston