Re: RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations

2010/11/28 Dallas Gutauckis <dallas@gutauckis.com>: > I understand the concern from above, but I don't agree with it > fundamentally. The kind of practice suggested by this search mechanic tells > me that either there is lack of or little documentation, and lack of or > little understanding of the codebase in which the code resides thereby > making this argument flawed based solely on the assumption that the majority > of code is (or should be) poorly maintained/documented. Yes. Absolutely. The majority of code /is/ poorly maintained and documented. I work with scrappy codebases that have seen dozens of devs over their lifetimes, and this patch removes one of the few certainties - that 'grep "function X"' is absolutely the fastest way to find the place where X is declared. I'm not an internals guy, so I can't vote, but I will ask you to reconsider this one. 2010/11/28 Ross Masters <ross@php.net>: > From what I understand T_FUNCTION would be optional, rather than removed > altogether, is this the case? This would allow those who want to use it the > option of using it and would not break existing code. My worry is that the last-guy-but-five used the new syntax and now I have to apply a fix to his code. Yeah, I'll find the function on my second/third attempt, but it is an impediment.