On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote: > >> Is there a reason that echo/print couldn't be implemented as functions >>> >with some sort of backwards compatibility layer? isset/etc make sense to >>> >> > Yes, the reason is not fixing what isn't broken:) >> > > And perhaps introducing 'black holes' like the one created when <?= > suddenly stopped working, then had to be repaired. If we were writing and > supporting 'flat' code where we know how everything works, things would be > a lot easier, but many of us are using third party libraries and frameworks > which tend to follow 'new practices' while some of us still stubbornly > stick to old ones ;) The discussion on picking up a know version of a > library is very relevant here, and would at least help to maintain > consistency. Can one ensure that backwards compatibility does not become > undefined in some circumstances and just adds to the workload ... and > creates further havoc in user land? > > There has to be a substantial reason to implementing change? > > I agree this is a largely pointless can of worms, but here's my POC from yesterday in case anyone wants to play with it: https://gist.github.com/arraypad/6044439 Arpad
