Well, being able to disable the fallback would allow developers to eagerly discover features that are going to be dropped (and it doesn't need to be a soft failure).
Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://marco-pivetta.com On 17 July 2012 16:14, Brandon Wamboldt <brandon.wambo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aren't certain modules included in the PHP core distribution, like the > mysqli extension that you enable using --with-mysqli? > > Could we not include the PHP5 namespace as an extension with the PHP > distribution, and have it enabled by default, but provide a > --disable-legacy-namespace option? > > Then in future versions of PHP, we could switch the option to > --enable-legacy-namespace instead. > > Thoughts? > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I dislike this idea from the ground up. > > > > While I think having a legacy implementation is definitely worth while, > it > > needs to be in core. So PHP6 would introduce the new syntax, and include > > the legacy functionality in as close to 100% backwards compatible way as > > possible. From there, we'd only remove the legacy functionality from core > > in 7 (which could be 4 or 5 years out). > > > > We don't want to be in the same situation with 6 that python was in with > 3, > > and perl was in 5. We want to encourage adoption. Having a PECL extension > > needed for adoption is not going to fly too well. But if we can add the > new > > functionality and give people an easy migration path, adoption will be > > easier. It still may take years, but it will at least be fairly smooth as > > the majority of existing code will still work. Of course some BC breaks > may > > be necessary (a-la what happened with PHP5), but they should be fairly > > localized and pretty easy to handle... And they should be justified > > (breaking BC for the sake of it, as with these legacy functions, would > be a > > mistake)... > > > > My $0.02 at least. > > > > Anthony > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Faulds <ajf...@googlemail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > This is an excellent idea. Full BC yet without legacy cruft. Old code > > runs > > > on legacy support extensions, new code doesn't need it. > > > On Jul 17, 2012 1:51 PM, "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Basically, the current function library is moved to the legacy > > > > > namespace. The default setting is import the functions of the > legacy > > > > > namespace into the root namespace for BC. But with that setting > > > > > turned off all the existing functions go away to be replaced with a > > > > > designed API, instead of a grown one, correcting the mistakes that > > > > > have accumulated over the years. > > > > > > > > Is there any reason why this cannot / should not be implemented as a > > > > PHP 5 compatibility extension? > > > > > > > > I think those who never want to use it (PHP 6 purists) shouldn't have > > > > to have their binaries bloated by legacy code. It would also mean > that > > > > the legacy implementation can be developed away from the new core, > and > > > > not have any (negative) influence on it. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Brandon Wamboldt* > Programmer / Web Developer > > StackOverflow Careers > Profile<http://careers.stackoverflow.com/brandonwamboldt>- GitHub > Profile <https://github.com/brandonwamboldt> - > LinkedIn<https://github.com/brandonwamboldt> - > My Blog <http://brandonwamboldt.ca/> >
