Re: What is the use of "unicode.semantics" in PHP 6?

Jochem Maas wrote: > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> Jochem Maas wrote: >>> Pierre wrote: >>>> On 7/6/07, Stefan Priebsch <stefan.priebsch@e-novative.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There must be a reason to upgrade to a new PHP version (usually >>>>> features, maybe performance increase etc.). But there also must be no >>>>> reason not to upgrade. But you all know this, it has been said before. >>>> Namespace is one _very_ important reason. If we need a "marketing" >>>> argument for PHP6 outside unicode, it is the one. I would also like to >>>> do not backport it (but we can backport it as well, my main problem is >>>> only this flag). >>> late static binding is another reason (are we still going to get that?) >> well .. last I heard we are still stuck on this one, since it would >> require expanding the general zval structure. > > oh, I see (well kind of), does this mean it may get taken off the table? > or is it slated as definite (assuming a satisfactory implementation can be > created)? I'll answer myself, as I've just come across Derick's meeting notes ... it's seems LSB is in and Marcus has the honor of suggesting an implementation. I wish him well with that and hope he succeeds! if he does I'll have to make him my hero for day. :-) and if he doesn't then at least he tried to do what I wish I could. > > sorry to be a bore about LSB, it's just that it's the thing I look forward to > most :-), I have missed it since php5 was still in RC and I really believe that > LSB would improve php's OO model. > > thank you for your feedback, > regards, > Jochem > >> regards, >> Lukas >> >