Aside from the addition of namespaces, XSLT profiling, late static binding, mysqlnd, OpneID support, etc. I have a little bone to pick with the naming of the __callStatic magic method after reading this blog post. Does it come as any surprise to you that PHP have gone ahead and added __call in PHP 5, but have not thought about it any further than that. They've then gone to the drawing board with PHP 5.3 and realised they needed a static variation, and then just appended the word Static to the end. To me the magic method naming of __call now seems utterly ambiguous. Surely they must label the __call method now to show what __call can and cannot do.

I want to see PHP starting to improve their bad naming schemes, not carry on doing it.

Seem logical to you?

__________________
The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.

I'm OK with it, but yeah, it's just another example of their fine planning skills.

__________________
Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.