On 3/15/13 11:11 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
I don't know why 'class::method' isn't supported, but I guess it's just a
legacy syntax that was superseded by the array notation
'class::method' was added significantly *later*, so I think it's fair for devs to assume
that it would be supported like ot
2013/3/15 Steve Clay
> My subject was misleading. I didn't mean to suggest call_user_func() be
> removed, just be made unnecessary by direct call syntax.
>
> This should make the inconsistency clearer: http://3v4l.org/L8Yvq
>
> On 3/15/13 10:21 AM, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
>
>> You don't need to us
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Steve Clay wrote:
> My subject was misleading. I didn't mean to suggest call_user_func() be
> removed, just be made unnecessary by direct call syntax.
>
> This should make the inconsistency clearer: http://3v4l.org/L8Yvq
>
> On 3/15/13 10:21 AM, Sebastian Krebs wr
My subject was misleading. I didn't mean to suggest call_user_func() be removed, just be
made unnecessary by direct call syntax.
This should make the inconsistency clearer: http://3v4l.org/L8Yvq
On 3/15/13 10:21 AM, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
You don't need to use it, if you don't like it.
I do
