On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 13:38 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > It's been a long time for 5.3 already ... let's try to make release
> > cycles shorter, not longer!
>
> There is no pressure on us to push a release.
Yes, if we decide to never release it's fine, but if we want to release
ever we have to d
Hi!
There is no pressure on us to push a release. If some features are
missing to make the new additions complete then let us complete them
before 5.3.0-final. That's exactly why we have test releases or tests
phases. It is really annoying to have half backed features
Yes there is pressure. We
Hi!
I like conformity. If my voice counts, I would be happy to accept this
as a BC. If necessary, all for "class" to be implied until V6 or V5.4
But "use" doesn't import classes, it imports names. The name doesn't
have to be class at all.
and mark it as an E_STRICT or E_DEPRECATED ("use Fo
Removing an already working feature is just weird IMHO.
Also... this proposal reminds me to an older discussion (please for
God sake, no flaming mails!) that Greg did some time ago that if using
"use class Foo\Bar;" was enough to differ between a static call and a
ns call. It as one of the proposa
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:19 -0600, Greg Beaver wrote:
>> [RFC]
>> Implement importing of functions to complement importing of classes and
>> namespaces.
>
> It was aid that import should only work with classes. We might extend
> that but
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:19 -0600, Greg Beaver wrote:
> [RFC]
> Implement importing of functions to complement importing of classes and
> namespaces.
It was aid that import should only work with classes. We might extend
that but not for 5.3! The only engine feature to change are closures and
there
2009/1/22 Larry Garfield :
> On Wednesday 21 January 2009 2:19:53 pm Greg Beaver wrote:
>> 2) adds new syntax to namespaces
>
> If I'm reading the RFC properly, it extends the existing syntax in a logical
> way without introducing any new reserved words. My only question then would
> be should we
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 2:19:53 pm Greg Beaver wrote:
> [Drawbacks]
> 1) requires changing the engine near beta
Legitimate concern, but I happily defer t the maintainers here.
> 2) adds new syntax to namespaces
If I'm reading the RFC properly, it extends the existing syntax in a logical
w
Having ascertained that Lukas did not shoot himself on seeing this...
This is a "testing of the waters" RFC. If there is interest, it will be
followed with a patch. It should be noted that the patch for this has
been available through the various vortexes of namespace syntax for over
a year no
