Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20722
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:17:46 -0000
Message-ID: <CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275841@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update
Thread-Index: AcX0AO9XNi43gFg3QIGPc9r8sg+mzwAItTnQ
To: <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update
From: M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk ("Ford, Mike")

On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

> > > BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about
> > > what you would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory
> > > whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very
> > > very bad.=20
>=20
> If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against
> all funky syntax, present and future. :: is only thing that is
> obvious and somehow connected to the world of PHP as we know it now.


Wow!  I go home early on a Friday, and come back to a veritable php-dev flo=
od in my Inbox! That must be the most active weekend since I started readin=
g the list!!

My point of view is similar to Stanislav's: any operator chosen should have=
 some echo of existing syntax -- this rules out the original suggestion of =
\ and many of the suggested alternatives.  I'm also completely against any =
solution that introduces new enforced whitespace, however unlikely the cons=
truct -- that just doesn't seem like "the PHP way".

The two existing "class to member" operators are :: and ->, so I'd be looki=
ng at analogues of these.  I'm not keen on :: itself performing double-duty=
 here, and I hate ::: and most of the repeated-character suggestions (%%, .=
., **, etc.) -- especially as the single-character versions all have comple=
tely unrelated meanings.

This leaves me looking for something not dissimilar to ->.  It's a shame th=
at =3D> is already taken, as that would have done nicely.  :> (or ::>), des=
pite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, containing e=
choes of both :: and -> -- I'd be ok with either of these.  Another possibi=
lity I haven't seen offered, and that has strong echoes of ->, is ~>.  I ca=
n't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obviously relat=
ed, but sufficiently different to be easily distinguished.

What do people think?

(Space for flame here...)



Cheers!

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ford,  Electronic Information Services Adviser,
Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services,
JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Headingley Campus, LEEDS,  LS6 3QS,  United Kingdom
Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk
Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730      Fax:  +44 113 283 3211=20


To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http:=
//disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm