Re: PHP 5.1

>From: "George Schlossnagle" <george@omniti.com> >> Yes, I know that operator overloading, as well as statically >> typed/dynamically typed, type checking, etc. are hotly debated topics, >> and >> that can be healthy, at least as long as there are reasonable >> arguments for >> either side. What I decried wasn't this thing in particular, and I'm >> relatively new to the PHP online community, but from the responses I >> got, >> felt something of a complacency ("The language is good enough as it >> is. Who >> needs advanced features. They may be misused. Etc."), and I guess I >> reacted >> to that, because I find it rather different in the C++ mailing lists >> and >> newsgroups, where there's often lively discussions about the evolution >> of the language. >The real problem is that there's a constant influx of (usually) >well-meaning people like yourself who come to the lists to propose >ideas which have been discussed in depth numerous times before and >which have been discarded (for better or worse, my personal opinion is >for better in this case). I figured that could be the case, which is also, in my first postings, I said that if this had been discussed before, I'd appreciate pointers to it, because I hadn't found it in the archive. However, I got hardly any response to that, which is why I kept asking about things that may have been asked and answered a zillion times. >At any rate, it's been discussed before and shelved, long before you >came on the scene. Even though the topic is new for you in this venue, >it's old for many other people, and it gets annoying to rehash the same >topics every couple months when someone new joins the list. The >discussions are all in the archives though, if you want to see the >less-reactionary roots of the rejections. I've searched for "overloading" on the archive for this list, as well as others and the newsgroups, but, as I said above, found very little about it. However, now that I know it's there, I'll make a new attempt. Thanks for your reply. Regards, Terje