Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91660 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 17968 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2016 18:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Mar 2016 18:26:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=james@asgrim.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=james@asgrim.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain asgrim.com designates 109.74.205.7 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: james@asgrim.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 109.74.205.7 thor.asgrim.com Received: from [109.74.205.7] ([109.74.205.7:59016] helo=thor.asgrim.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C0/F0-11272-B6207E65 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:26:51 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) (Authenticated sender: james.asgrim) by thor.asgrim.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2470CAA4F1 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:26:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id oe12so14602221lbc.0 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ1n30IGyR0vATeKdiiOQNZ2ecJ+z9M9DqUpqi3ZlntJhneVP1GeGKzTmiyBs8OaPKpTM9DsXy4jbuznQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.13.33 with SMTP id e1mr6666198lbc.79.1457980008517; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: james@asgrim.com Received: by 10.25.196.214 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.196.214 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:26:47 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "Colin O'Dell" Cc: Patrick ALLAERT , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c39e267f598d052e066c84 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Discussion] "var" Deprecation From: james@asgrim.com (James Titcumb) --001a11c39e267f598d052e066c84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 14 Mar 2016 6:14 p.m., "Colin O'Dell" wrote: > > > > > Forcing people to specify a visibility for properties and not for methods > > would add yet another inconsistency in the language. > > > > That's a really good point. Yup, agree with this. In my opinion, I'd like to see two birds with one stone, but a separate RFC is acceptable I suppose. The only risk is one change getting voted in and not the other, leaving an even worse inconsistency IMO. I think this RFC should be all or nothing: require visibility for both methods and properties, or do not require anything. --001a11c39e267f598d052e066c84--