Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:11054 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58245 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Jul 2004 00:07:42 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58221 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2004 00:07:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx.thebrainroom.net) (69.55.226.195) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2004 00:07:42 -0000 Received: by mx.thebrainroom.net (Postfix, from userid 517) id BC8E11488035; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BAUMBART (p508EAFD4.dip.t-dialin.net [80.142.175.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.thebrainroom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FE41488033; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:07:47 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <133830157.20040710020747@marcus-boerger.de> To: George Schlossnagle Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , Marc Richards , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040707203931.02fa6200@mail.ionzoft.com> <40ED64A0.7050305@cschneid.com> <20040708151952.92187.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708215205.23281.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708222005.4329.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <20040708233326.73283.qmail@pb1.pair.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on jc.thebrainroom.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: X-TBR-Filter: Virus scanned and defanged Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] what happened to that new isset() like language From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello George, Friday, July 9, 2004, 8:56:15 PM, you wrote: > On Jul 9, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote: >>> Are you saying PHP will never introduce an operator that doesn't >>> already >>> exist in a large number of other languages? >> >> That's a good rule. Over the 10 years of PHP development we have >> followed >> this with the only exception being the === operators for checking for >> "really equal". > And you could make a case for similar operators existing in perl (eq vs > ==, which are of course slightly different). Looking at the confusion we started by simply having a different order in evaluating the ternary operator i won't recomment starting to introduce new operators like ?: that would definitively confuse everybody and tend to erroneous code because it is too easy to misuse them by mistake....so lets keep with that rule. marcus