> Two notes on this. > > - Noone said that PHP should be replaced with &php; in the manual, > in fact some people opposed this *idea*. So this was not a good idea > at all here. Thos suggesting &php; have not yet provided reasons > on why this would be good (or I have missed those reasons).
Sorry, I thought it has been approved before was added to entity list.
Comment in language-snippets says:
"These are here as helpers for manual consistency and brievety".
I doubt &safemode; entity could be useful, but look at sources: we have PHP vs <literal>PHP</literal> 4/5 vs <literal>PHP 4/5</literal>. Such entity could really improve consistency, couldn't it? :]. It could if the original idea was to use <literal>PHP</literal>.
Anyway, I'm going to revert it to PHP 4/5 (without <literal />). Is that ok?
> I have planned on starting a discussion later on how that new PHP 5 OO > section should be built up, since it should be suitable for both PHP 4 > converts and those new to PHP. Therefore using 'objects are no longer' > or 'changed the behaviour' might not be correct in that section, since > it does not mean anything for newbies. It in fact makes their way > harder. Ideas?
> This is difficult.... I really have no ideas to OO. > Split the language reference OO in PHP 4 and 5?
Spliting could make harder way of PHP 4 developers are not familiar to OOP. But I suppose it would be best choise.
> Goba >
