Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20730 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28727 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Nov 2005 16:31:00 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28712 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2005 16:31:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Nov 2005 16:31:00 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.184.199 wproxy.gmail.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([64.233.184.199:48976] helo=wproxy.gmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id A8/A7-21657-3C03B834 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:30:59 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i24so1748151wra for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:30:56 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Y4CJmUu2XK3oqjSuBtv+SgWhFKKptw/qpX1ulsyNypcv0MlJo7QoChg8K8YKV4M+F8gM/bEMqkH+zHXdVlJ7R4o/HFtW52xn+6tQLFXtvodBKdfp1PpZ4kZQV94k4eA5ad581khNXp3GC+VfcX+nZPL8ghLSnJIvWkza+quPO0Y= Received: by 10.65.214.4 with SMTP id r4mr1518189qbq; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:30:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.186.4 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:30:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:30:54 +0200 To: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <87.57.21657.F3F2B834@pb1.pair.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <87.57.21657.F3F2B834@pb1.pair.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update From: manchokapitancho@gmail.com (Marian Kostadinov) Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember just now if it was used somewhere. 2005/11/28, Ron Korving : > wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method() > I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks prett= y > cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;) > > anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'l= l > cause problems with any existing operator. > > - ron > > > > ""Ford, Mike"" 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 ha= ve > 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 =3D> is already taken, as that would have done nicely. :> (or ::>), > despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, contain= ing > 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 > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >