On 3/4/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > wrote in message news:56d86c00.6000...@fleshgrinder.com... >> >> On 3/3/2016 10:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote: >>> If you want to avoid such confusion over alias names then surely that >>> would be an argument against introducing aliases in the first place. In >>> this case the short array syntax would never have been introduced as the >>> (only slightly longer) long array syntax had already existed since >>> day #1. >> >> No, that is not what one should conclude from it. Short array syntax was >> added by popular demand > > Really? Exactly how many of the millions of PHP developers out there > voted for this change?
I was not part of the decision back then, however, it was how I received the addition of the feature. >> and hence for a very good reason. The fact that >> there are no plans regarding the old syntax and thus keeping the >> duplication indefinitely is the actual problem. > > Is it actually a "problem"? How many books and articles on PHP > programming are out there which use the "old" syntax? How much confusion > would it cause if the "old" and well known syntax were to be dropped? > How many applications would suddenly stop working? How much effort would > be required in userland to fix this state of affairs? How many swear > words would these userland developers have for the language developers? > There are NO sideeffects of leaving aliases in the language. It would > take NO effort to leave them in, but it would take effort to take them > out which includes updating immense volumes of documentation. The only > "problem" is that it offends the delicate sensibilities of a few > "purist" developers who cannot understand the difference between > improving the language and breaking it. The argument in regards to books and articles is imho irrelevant. Nobody learns Java 8 with a Java 2 book; nor do you learn PHP 8 with a PHP 4 book. This is just silly. The upgrade path is important and not the fact that some 15+ year old applications might not work anymore. Rowan Collins makes a much better case here with his arguments instead of nagging at the stale argument of "we need to support every line of (bad) code out there". PHP being a mess is still one of the most quoted arguments against PHP! > Only if it results in an actual and measurable improvement. Changes for > "purity" or "consistency" do NOT fall into this category. This is your believe and you know that many people disagrees with you on this; you just commented on the "[RFC] Deprecations for PHP 7.1" thread and we have much more of those RFCs and threads. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
