Re: Re: RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations

On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote: > Personally, as a user-land developer, I'm against it, so -1. > function keyword is the only sane way to quickly find a function > definition in lots of code. Not always IDE's are able to fully > understand the interconnections in frameworks and point by CTRL + > Click me to the function definition, not to say that in many cases you > just don't have that IDE available right now and right here. > Now it's quite easy to make a search on a folder recursively - just > enter "function blah" and here you go - one entry with the function > definition. Try that with the function/method name without the > "function" keyword, good luck with going through tons of entries. > > I deal with typing the whole "public/private function blabla() {" by > defining a auto complete shortcut like "prfnc => space => private > function |(){" where | is cursor. > > Please keep it KISS way. Language should evolve for sure, but some > things are not just worth sacrificing the verbosity even if it means > cuts typing some of the most common keywords in the language and can > be perfectly done keeping the BC. > > P.S. Personally I will prohibit my developers to use the short syntax > without the "function" keyword. Agreed. -1 here also. -- Gwynne