Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14614 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6296 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Feb 2005 23:36:30 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6280 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2005 23:36:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Feb 2005 23:36:29 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.13.4.94 bgo1smout1.broadpark.no Solaris 9 Received: from ([217.13.4.94:64739] helo=bgo1smout1.broadpark.no) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity HEAD (r4105:4106)) with SMTP id D0/C0-10528-D75B2024 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:36:29 -0500 Received: from bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no ([217.13.4.93]) by bgo1smout1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IBD003RT004A480@bgo1smout1.broadpark.no> for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:31:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from pc ([80.203.129.71]) by bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.05 (built Oct 21 2004)) with SMTP id <0IBD00F6R0CZA1C0@bgo1sminn1.broadpark.no> for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:39:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:38:58 +0100 To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <053901c50a49$88308a20$0300000a@pc> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050201111730.0299da70@localhost> <030301c50a15$024897b0$a900000a@adstate.local> <011701c50a26$e9dc6fa0$0300000a@pc> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.1 From: tslettebo@broadpark.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Terje_Sletteb=F8?=) >From: "Derick Rethans" >> > TS>>As someone said, "Syntactic sugar matters, or we'd all be >> > TS>>writing assembly code." :) >> > >> > Someone was wrong. There are syntax constructs that allow to reduce >> > complexity of the code, and there are constructs that make the code have >> > the same complexity but look prettier to the eyes of the writer. >> >> It depends on how you define "complexity". Are the following two lines >> equally complex to you: >Let me be blunt as you;'e not giving up. We will not add it. Period, >punt, punktum. This discussion is pointless - stop it! Apparently it is, but not because I've got convincing arguments in return. Regards, Terje