Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:104681
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a70baca7-f0af-49de-9cf9-5421e42e0a0c@www.fastmail.com>
 <CAJW__o31wn8R4oXq2U-G+6VmXTKLuRvYg2zVD4bLXvUuoDxmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKx2GVEpFcA+nUB+UcBBGy_Qxhk6aB8qrFLyqfxJTWV_NQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJW__o2GKDYq7YkKm6-Vtco3WFdQ3DCbToA9LUYTThJLGxGaTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJW__o2GKDYq7YkKm6-Vtco3WFdQ3DCbToA9LUYTThJLGxGaTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:36:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKwct0Py34wqGkSaXVVQDinOMJ4gsDPSPvKsfdtEeRhsFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>, Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000161c270583e84a96"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Draft: Comprehensions
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--000000000000161c270583e84a96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:12 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Den tir. 12. mar. 2019 kl. 15.49 skrev Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com
> >:
> > Everything looks weird and "non-phpish" when it's new. OO constructs
> weren't PHP-ish at first, because PHP didn't originally support OO. Imagine
> "foreach" didn't exist in PHP and we were still using
> while(list($key,$value) = each($arr)) syntax.
> >
> > I agree that some of the examples are a bit hard to read and understand
> - but that's only because we haven't been exposed to them.
>
> What I mean here is that the lack of things like the parentheses makes
> the code generally harder to read, imagine this for large
> comprehensions as userland would certainly do things like that and you
> end up with monstrosities of code that is less verbose than the
> counter examples given in the RFC. I mean sure I could just rewrite a
> comprehension with a lot of whitespace, but it kinda seem to defeat
> the purpose of short circuited generators and I might as well just
> write it the more verbose way.
>
> I've never liked "developers might use it wrong" as reason to not
implement something, especially if hard to read/complex code is the worst
impact to improper use.


> I like the idea, just not the syntax because it has the potential
> (along with short closures) to be annoying to read in the long run.
>

I understand that you are talking about the syntax (which others have said
is still up for discussion) and not the feature itself. I still wanted to
make the comment above more a general response to that line of thinking.


>
> --
> regards,
>
> Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> kalle@php.net
>
-- 
-- Chase
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--000000000000161c270583e84a96--