On July 30, 2004 01:38 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote: > a) Most of the OOP functionality was requested by a huge amount of PHP > developers I've talked to.
I cannot comment on that as I can't hardly comment on the people you spoke with. What I personally heard about OO primary request from developers that I heard was that they wanted objects to be passed by reference rather then by copy. But this is another point all together... > b) I don't think internals@ is a reflection of the PHP community. If this is the case, why are we even bothering to discuss relevant to PHP issues on this list? If people who read/write to this list do not reflect the community perhaps we should discuss this in general@ or anywhere else where the voice of the "community" can be heard. That said this puts A LOT of previously made decisions on this list in question, such as the choice of StudlyCaps, etc... given that they were discussed in an incorrect forum. Given this revelation, could you please tell me where the PHP community is reflected, so that I may be aware of it's preferences. > Most > people here fall into the category of very advanced developers. Doesn't > make sense to me to add a stinky construct which no one should really be > using, just because there are 50 people out there (most of them on > internals@) who would actually use it correctly. So, what exactly consitutue a sufficient proof that "sticky construct" is needed, a signed petition by 51% of the PHP's userbase? Ilia -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
