Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91935
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 65.55.169.123 as permitted sender)
To: Mutlu Kocak <mtkocak@mtkocak.net>, Colin O'Dell <colinodell@gmail.com>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] var deprecation
Thread-Index: AQHRhgG2VdxycU17e0Sqz21WCgyS859pvmPI
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:12:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0201MB1784FB800F7F019DFCC315A9BF830@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAJaRsPuA109tuEt4OC0RoYjd2G8RWaiLcya-GeAGShkWQSFnwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJaRsPuCxa06Zj7_eXb8tnzpq3GbcKsLjq7f+EaHORpLgxvxmw@mail.gmail.com>,<CAFLRTJ8drqpA2PLuUxTsYSbZWSHMZrEokgHEsGCBv7shoUZRDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFLRTJ8drqpA2PLuUxTsYSbZWSHMZrEokgHEsGCBv7shoUZRDw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Mar 2016 07:12:28.4836
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0201MB1782
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] var deprecation
From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov)

Java is going to add "var" (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/286), we are going=
 to remove...

________________________________________
From: mtkocak@gmail.com <mtkocak@gmail.com> on behalf of Mutlu Kocak <mtkoc=
ak@mtkocak.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 22:15
To: Colin O'Dell
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] var deprecation

+1 var should be deprecated

On Thursday, 24 March 2016, Colin O'Dell <colinodell@gmail.com> wrote:

> There have been some last-minute concerns raised about var being reserved
> "for future usage".  My intent was that var couldn't be used for
> function/class names IN CASE it was re-used in the future, but not
> encouraging it to be re-used.  I'd assume that reusing it would require a
> separate RFC to pass by a 2/3rds margin.
>
> Does anyone disagree with this interpretation or feel that it should be
> explicitly stated?  Would anyone change their vote from NO to YES if "for
> future usage" was removed (but "reserving it" was kept in)?  Would anyone
> change their vote from NO to YES if the question of "reserving it" could =
be
> voted on separately?
>
> If so, and we can stop the vote to make these changes, I'd strongly prefe=
r
> to do so.  I'd hate for three words to sink the entire RFC.
>
> (My apologies if this belongs in the discussion thread instead)
>
> Regards,
>
> Colin
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:40 AM Colin O'Dell <colinodell@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > It has been two weeks since discussion started on the RFC to deprecate
> and
> > eventually remove the "var" keyword (and one month since the idea was
> > originally proposed).
> >
> > This RFC has therefore been moved to the "In Voting" state.  Voting wil=
l
> > begin immediately and will end in one week.
> >
> > You can find the full RFC (including the proposed patch and automatic
> > upgrade tool) here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/var_deprecation
> >
> > I encourage everyone to read the RFC and cast your vote towards whichev=
er
> > option you feel is the best for the language and the community.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Colin O'Dell
> >
>


--
Mutlu Ko=E7ak | Computer Scientist & Engineer
Mobile: +420775259871
Parizksa 5, Praha 1 Prague Czech Republic

Personal Website: http://www.mtkocak.com