On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Robert Korulczyk <rob...@korulczyk.pl> wrote:
> > While possibly a bit hyperbolic, most of the arguments basically come > off that way to me as well. I've definitely viewed most of what you've said > in > > that manner. > > I guess we're in some kind of limbo where half of the people do not > consider problems which short open tags create as serious, and other half > does not > consider BC break implications as serious. > I already migrated some quite big legacy apps from `<?` to `<?php` using > existing tools for this, and I can't even image simpler BC break to deal > with. So for me "it will be so hard to upgrade" arguments are also exaggerated, > and that's why I'm concerned about future BC breaks - if such simple > change encounters such fierce resistance, then what kind of BC break can > be accepted? > This was exactly my reason for participating in this discussion, if such simple BC break encounters fierce and lengthy-weighted resistance, I'm not sure there will ever be a BC break, only additions without a necessary cleanup. That's just like, there's a precedent to resist all kinds of BC break simply because there's no positive impact on the change. Millions of code can be migrated through many existing libraries in short time frame to comply with the short tag depreciation. I think the resistance is actually the reason this discussion(thread) gets this lengthy. At the end of all, we either have it or leave it. Happy coding. > > Regards, > Robert Korulczyk > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
