Re: [PEPr] Comment on PHP::PHP_Callback

David Soria Parra wrote:

Of course it reduce 2-4 lines to code to one, but I don't think it's a great simplification to build a PEAR package from that. I think it's okay to argue a little bit with the language. For sure it allows type hinting, but thats not what people expect from a dynamic typed language. To stand for that argument you have to add Integer, String, etc classes too, just for the type hinting.

This is becoming a bit of a "What colour should the bike shed be?" kind of problem ;) I think I remember reading in an ezComponents slideshow "The less dependencies the better" The more these little shortcuts are used, the more dependencies... I don't think this code warrants its own PEAR package. Maybe if there were some other useful tidbits that people could use to form a greater PHP_Utils package then I'd change my mind. I agree with Betrand that there are other ideas for packages that people might want to see get pushed out. I also agree with Josh that we shouldn't scare away developers who want to join PEAR... I was having a conversation with Greg on #pear about places to put ideas for packages or what sort of things people want to see go into pear. He mentioned something like a PEAR-wide roadmap or a package collective roadmap. -- David Sanders shangxiao