On 8 June 2010 17:28, Brian Moon <br...@moonspot.net> wrote: >> The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already >> documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting >> the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity >> here :) >> Also, allowing "new (blah());" would be a fairly big BC break I'd say. > > How? Maybe you don't understand what BC break means. Currently, new ( > produces a parse error. So, no old code would ever be broken. That is what a > BC break is. A change to the system that breaks old code. New code very > often does not run on older versions of the parser.
I do understand what BC break means - I was probably just too quick on that one. I figured that allowing 'new (blahblah())' would introduce ambiguity for handling parentheses in general with regards to 'new', but I'm probably wrong. Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: http://plphp.dk / http://plind.dk LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/plind BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 Twitter: http://twitter.com/kafe15 </hype> -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
