On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, at 16:35, Marco Aurélio Deleu wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2024, at 11:30, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > >> On 7/19/24 00:51, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > >> And frankly, how much code would be affected? I mean, does anybody > >> actually put a comment between `yield` and `from`? Is there a case > >> where this may make sense? "Because we can" isn't a strong argument, in > >> my opinion. > > > > I don't really follow this line of argumentation: > > > > If folks do not use the syntax anyways, then we do not need to have this > > discussion, because the tools can just ignore it existing. That also means > > we do not need to revert the change in PHP. > > > > If folks use the syntax, then reverting the change is a breaking change for > > them. > > > > So either the revert is not doing anything at all, or the revert is > > actively harmful. I do not see a situation where reverting the change is a > > value-add. > > > > Best regards > > Tim Düsterhus > > The value add of the revert is because time is a moving target. We don't > think anyone is using it _yet_, given the circumstances that made this > happen. Wait long enough and the only guarantee we have is entropy.
Even if people are using it, if fixing it is better than leaving it… Oh well. A perfect example is the GMP class being left not “final” that allows for some really nice semantics. It’s currently being voted on and it appears an unanimous vote to make it final will pass. The language can and will change. Sometimes in ways we don’t like. — Rob
