Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:13664 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 77168 invoked by uid 1010); 1 Nov 2004 14:45:36 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76797 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 14:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO prohost.org) (216.126.86.27) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 14:45:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 2478 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 14:44:41 -0000 Received: from cpe0050bad46dce-cm000f9f7d6664.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (@69.196.31.138) by prohost.org with SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 14:44:41 -0000 Message-ID: <41864BCA.5050701@prohost.org> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:44:26 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sterling@apache.org CC: Marcus Boerger , Wez Furlong , internals@lists.php.net References: <418294D9.4070700@prohost.org> <20041029193421.9557.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20041029162045.0439b9c0@localhost> <20041031093753.74166.qmail@pb1.pair.com> <42285846.20041031233522@marcus-boerger.de> <41856AEF.4060501@php.net> <4e89b426041031172932ada70f@mail.gmail.com> <1152524831.20041101030445@marcus-boerger.de> <24e5f3b7041031220372d44413@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <24e5f3b7041031220372d44413@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Negative string offset support From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) IMO {-1} syntax is not only faster but simpler to use then the equivalent substr() (for read) or $a[strlen($a) - 1] (for write). While my reasons are primarily performance based, I think that most people would find the {-1} simpler to use as well. Ilia Sterling Hughes wrote: > i hope not. this should be about what's cool for developers, the > speed increase is not a compelling reason.. the debate is "does this > make code easier to read/write/maintain?" I think it doesn't, and > therefore am against it. > > -sterling > > > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 03:04:45 +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >>Hello Wez, >> >> well it would. However 5.1 aims to be a major speed improvement and that's >>what the idea is about. >> >>best regards >>marcus >> >> >> >>Monday, November 1, 2004, 2:29:46 AM, you wrote: >> >> >>>Doesn't substr($a, -1) work ? >> >>>--Wez. >> >>>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:45:03 -0500, Greg Beaver wrote: >>> >>>>It would reduce the errors I inevitably get >>>>whenever using a complex feature like substr(). The three choices: >>>> >>>>1) substr($a, strlen($a) - 1); >>>>2) $a{strlen($a) - 1} >>>>3) $a{-1} >>>> >>>>It's pretty obvious that the 3rd choice lowers the potential for all >>>>kinds of bugs (mistypign, wrong parameter name, incorrect parameter >>>>placement), and is much more readable. For those who already know how >>>>{} works in PHP, it's also obvious what it does at the first look >>>>without any speculation. >> >>-- >>Best regards, >> Marcus mailto:helly@php.net >> >>-- >>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> > >