> I put forward the following RFC "Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)" for
> The argument that they're visually difficult to distinguish from a single
quote is valid (though IDEs with syntax highlighting mitigate much of
this), as are most of the arguments presented. However, as with several
RFCs recently my overall position is: "BC breaks *must* have a justifiable
benefit to outweigh their cost." The fact that so few people on the reddit
thread which prompted this RFC (yes, I read the internet too) were even
aware this feature existed points to there not being a problem which needs
to be solved.
The argument about it not being obvious that exec related ini settings
apply to backtick is silly and I'm going to ignore it.
October 4, 2019 18:firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Randall)
On 04/10/2019 19:03, Sara Golemon wrote:
> The argument about it not being obvious that exec related ini settings
> apply to backtick is silly and I'm going to ignore it.
I have updated the RFC to note that the reason for this potential
confusion is that that during compilation, rather than just having
identical behaviour, the compiler actually transforms the AST into a
userland function call to the named shell_exec function as per