Yeah I heard, but it doesn't mean it'll become a part of the language
(doesn't mean that it would not, but as usual, no discussion ;).
What Alan suggested is already a part of the language, bares no
additional overhead (both CPU cycles and brain cycles), and also
(least important point) is very easy to implement.
Zeev
At 05:08 26/05/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Zeev,
actually there is a student working on a pre-processor for his summer
of code project. And that will most likely cover versioning, too.
best regards
marcus
Friday, May 26, 2006, 4:06:00 AM, you wrote:
> I read it as if it was declare() ;)
> I agree with Pierre that the best way to handle BC break is not to
> introduce it, but since that's not always 100% possible, this may
> make sense. Of course, it'll only work with stuff that is
> syntax-compliant with the currently running PHP version, but that
> covers most BC breakage.
> Zeev
> At 04:57 26/05/2006, Alan Knowles wrote:
>>actaully it should have been declare() - as I think the syntax for that
>>almost works already, but yes, code doesnt get compiled if it's inside a
>>block.
>>
>>Regards
>>Alan
>>
>>Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > At 03:57 26/05/2006, Alan Knowles wrote:
>> >> Can we start concentrating on finding a real solution to BC breaks
>> >> rather than throwing them out there and everyone complaining?
>> >>
>> >> define(php5) {
>> >> stuff that breaks in php6
>> >> }
>> >> define(php6) {
>> >> stuff that doesnt work in PHP5
>> >> }
>> >
>> > What's the semantics of that? The code inside doesn't get executed if
>> > it's not the define()'d PHP version?
>> >
>> > Zeev
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
