Am 05.10.2014 um 00:10 schrieb Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>: > On Oct 4, 2014 11:24 AM, "Thomas Gossmann" <m...@gossimaniac.net> wrote: >> >> Thanks Johannes, I slipped over it but would have never found the > discussion to it. >> >> I run over it and the summary is: Many people like it and those that > don't have brought arguments, that are present here again. The discussion > is almost 4 years old by now, and people are complaining over things > getting implemented in php back in time, which are now implemented and > turned out to be ok - I expect the same to happen with this idea. >> Main contra argument is, people are not able to grep for 'function *' > anymore, which I guess is a minority of people and they can write > themselves a shell-script which makes it possible to search for functions > again, so not a big deal. However, the more important statement behind this > is, who is the more important crowd of people that are targeted with > changes like these? Primary or secondary consumers? >> ... but see my other mail, which conatains answers. >> >> Though, I have one question left regarding the old rfc? Why it has been > gone inactive and basically slept since then? >> >> Thanks >> Thomas Gossmann >> >> Am 04.10.14 um 19:44 schrieb Johannes Schlüter: >> >>> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 18:21 +0200, Thomas Gossmann wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess this was a discussion earlier, though I wasn't able to find >>>> anything about it. Would love to hear, what pdt-internals (re-)think >>>> about that topic. >>> >>> >>> Go to wiki.php.net/rfc look at the titles containing "function" and you >>> will see "Make T_FUNCTION in method declarations optional" which was >>> added by me. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function >>> >>> Since proposing I was convinced this wasn't good. Please bring new >>> arguments. Discussion was in this thread >>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/50628 (another viewer might be better >>> to find the ~64 followups) >>> >>> johannes >>> >> >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> > > Summary thus far: > > Pro: Eliminating the function keyword is good because coding === > sculpting; "perfection" occurs when there's nothing left to remove. - The function keyword does not comply to the fact that its used on class methods. - It’s a duplicate, when the parantheses already indicate a „function“.
> > Con: It's completely unnecessary and would make it prohibitively difficult > to consistently locate subroutine declarations in a codebase. - People can no longer use a simple grep command to pick up functions. - IDE’s will have to adapt to a longer search pattern. > > I believe the cons vastly outweigh the pros in this case. The function > keyword is a very good example of PHP's KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > philosophy. > > But if you're serious about this, draft an RFC and we'll vote on it. If > 2/3 support your idea, it'll pass. > > --Kris Sorry, but if you summarize arguments, it’d be only fair to read back and actually name as many as possible. Not everybody can vote though, sadly. I still wish there was a way for non-devs to have a voice on feature votes. Kind regards, Ingwie. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
