Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:114999
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [PROPOSAL] Bare name array literals (again)
Thread-Index: AQHXZryCJm/mj5rNokqkQmATCwMJ5qse9FCAgAAyiKU=
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:22:21 +0000
Message-ID:
 <DM6PR07MB661800F206028AA7940B0BB8F9099@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <DM6PR07MB66186AD1AF40B256C5C3ABA0F90A9@DM6PR07MB6618.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>,<4039DE1C-996B-4AB0-B211-F626142F356C@cschneid.com>
In-Reply-To: <4039DE1C-996B-4AB0-B211-F626142F356C@cschneid.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [98gKrpotSbpCtsL6FjSfoj8Eq1dii1p4Wtwi6YPxQPnMPUGej5waMLck4YISepqH]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 44
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 84580990-4480-45d2-b356-08d93513cd5a
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7NAM10HT248:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 OP+ToHchJEuOrt2VvSDG/xrOMW5kqaTCcRiIF75GQQ6uj8wTE1gX/SD64GSajD+dTyMx8s4euB4tB5GVtThJ32XrsrHDiqdMsnH6x3M6oNtR6I3JMjR+vQHIewgKTYOcR9Kv+odFd8Xr11lQxb1MFowTdcRPeAsnbBOV3Agukjwk/siLMMr92WnBgSDl7DbAqLko9Tr32xs1bSlfEfL1qWm+y1bAUDk91uPUzbd27wMJMl3zuZ8Es101u87qr5azn/Df6P2U+92nUWaIg78h9UAYZOkHq7DKhULvKppiLZGEWp79e0k2nUuQDcVilXPA981prQKLAaZQHNUbe5qwpSJiY+nNoViEQqi3Ez/bg3VE3bbdEdJhZgvm4LLIWfBX+KCiEt06Te3URA9ZSy68yqKw7ovC3Sd17yh6hFhqI0opn7Ci8WGBjlm3hymXeJdFEAFibRZvutzIJ3KyLMZj6Q==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 kgPeBn2rnWUG2+QLcpjGtJxK0QaCmvjpMhc4KZSDLvthz0EX4ouvf0aYUvT8YzTWlowbhNj7hVJiAZ5gapAqeiYPJzF66W2+74Ohg7QUWVFN5ddqzLLYP6BQeCaiMs4uWBgVBSsRZEGorK9miIf3hwJh8qcdWXqq/a7q8a7QXMZc+VQIXete7dPzNvfYMWkfgw9Q1oR36OZOmYZA78dMLw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN7NAM10FT051.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 84580990-4480-45d2-b356-08d93513cd5a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jun 2021 00:22:21.4770
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7NAM10HT248
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PROPOSAL] Bare name array literals (again)
From: tysonandre775@hotmail.com (tyson andre)

Hi Christian Schneider,=0A=
=0A=
> > return [success: true, data: $data, cursor: $cursor];=0A=
> > // is equivalent to the following, but shorter:=0A=
> > return ['success' =3D> true, 'data' =3D> $data, 'cursor' =3D> $cursor];=
=0A=
> =0A=
> Just a little side-note: A while ago I proposed a 2-line-patch to allow :=
$foo as a synonym for 'foo' =3D> $foo.=0A=
> =0A=
> This allows for=0A=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 return ['success' =3D> true, :$data, :$cursor];=0A=
> which is both shorter and removes repetition while keeping the variable u=
sage $data and $cursor visible.=0A=
> =0A=
> I know that this has been shot down before but I couldn't resist mentioni=
ng it in this context, sorry ;-)=0A=
=0A=
I'd also implemented the same thing at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/=
6635 and reverted it - didn't see that when the PR was first created=0A=
=0A=
> It had also suggested `:$var` or `=3D$var` as shorthand for `var: $var`,=
=0A=
> but this is going to be left out of this proposal=0A=
> https://externals.io/message/101698 has mostly negative feedback on a rec=
ent proposal (and there are multiple syntax candidates)=0A=
=0A=
That was left out - I expected it would get less votes than just `var: $var=
` for reasons mentioned in https://externals.io/message/101698=0A=
=0A=
Based on past RFCs I've seen, I'd assume an RFC would fail if most feedback=
 was proposing alternate solutions or arguing against it, like it is here.=
=0A=
And voting results for https://wiki.php.net/rfc/bare_name_array_literal wer=
e mostly negative.=0A=
I'd hoped named arguments using the same syntax might raise interest in thi=
s, but it doesn't look like it so far.=0A=
=0A=
E.g. short functions in https://externals.io/message/113751 had some positi=
ve feedback, but still got less than 2/3 votes=0A=
=0A=
Thanks,=0A=
Tyson=