Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20729
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <87.57.21657.F3F2B834@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275841@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:24:13 +0100
Lines: 72
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update
From: r.korving@xit.nl ("Ron Korving")

wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method()
I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks pretty 
cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;)

anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'll 
cause problems with any existing operator.

- ron



""Ford, Mike"" <M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk> schreef in bericht 
news:CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275841@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk...
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.
>
> 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 
flood in my Inbox! That must be the most active weekend since I started 
reading 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 
construct -- that just doesn't seem like "the PHP way".

The two existing "class to member" operators are :: and ->, so I'd be 
looking 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 completely unrelated meanings.

This leaves me looking for something not dissimilar to ->.  It's a shame 
that => is already taken, as that would have done nicely.  :> (or ::>), 
despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, containing 
echoes of both :: and -> -- I'd be ok with either of these.  Another 
possibility I haven't seen offered, and that has strong echoes of ->, is ~>. 
I can't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obviously 
related, 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


To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to 
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm