Hello Stanislav, I must be having a headache here. But there seriously seems to be a misunderstanding.
We definitively introduced __construct as a bug fix in our language design. And that is that you can have a function a in your class b that suddenly becomes a constructor in the derived class just becasue it is named a. sure we can add more and more fixes around it and we do. But then getting rid of all of them is clearly a cleanup. Having said this, I am all with Derick and Pierre here. There is a cleanup needed and there was nothing broken because we are speaking of new functionality here mixed with old BC stuff. If we now care for our users in the way you mention Stas, then I suggest we rather add a nice message that one has to use new style ctors than to add more code to support it. Becasue the latter will result in just one thing. We will have to live with the mess longer and people will use it longer which means we will never be able to get rid of it. marcus Monday, May 5, 2008, 9:17:15 PM, you wrote: > Hi! >> We can then even drop the old form in php 6.x. Many changes have no >> gain but make the language clearer or cleaner. It is not an objective >> change but it does help to cleanup the language. > There's nothing to "cleanup". You trying to prove that this form should > be removed by representing it as "dirt", but it is not - this form is > not worse than the other, and there's no reason to mess with people's > code just for the heck of it. There are a lot of things in PHP that can > and need be improved, why to mess with things that work just fine? > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
