Re: Language constructs and callability
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that echo/print couldn't be implemented as functions
>>> >with some sort of backwards compatibility layer? isset/etc make sense to
>>>
>>
> Yes, the reason is not fixing what isn't broken:)
>>
>
> And perhaps introducing 'black holes' like the one created when <?=
> suddenly stopped working, then had to be repaired. If we were writing and
> supporting 'flat' code where we know how everything works, things would be
> a lot easier, but many of us are using third party libraries and frameworks
> which tend to follow 'new practices' while some of us still stubbornly
> stick to old ones ;) The discussion on picking up a know version of a
> library is very relevant here, and would at least help to maintain
> consistency. Can one ensure that backwards compatibility does not become
> undefined in some circumstances and just adds to the workload ... and
> creates further havoc in user land?
>
> There has to be a substantial reason to implementing change?
>
>
I agree this is a largely pointless can of worms, but here's my POC from
yesterday in case anyone wants to play with it:
https://gist.github.com/arraypad/6044439
Arpad
Thread (22 messages)