Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20731 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36113 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Nov 2005 16:41:03 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36098 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2005 16:41:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Nov 2005 16:41:03 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 66.249.82.197 xproxy.gmail.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([66.249.82.197:49187] helo=xproxy.gmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 37/C8-21657-E133B834 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:41:02 -0500 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h27so2479924wxd for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:40:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=WFoGQo4QMZblpDGg7FfjpTOe7KRsvlUjQk3GPqOkM5I152I+mEVn7+QBZIsULm7NxcvG/CJ0fSAwC9JILCX7Ih/xAzqFsBRFi5Is8xFsvkC7g5LNgxzbkph1QTEW7EFwuluWI6MzptGgXeGQ8g8HGqDYlUsDAs7mvqyFPh6G104= Received: by 10.65.145.14 with SMTP id x14mr11850539qbn; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.228.11 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:40:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4e36d31d0511280840i798c45a3l1050f8ba3e30fa71@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:40:59 -0800 To: Marian Kostadinov Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: 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: buddhahead@gmail.com (Sebastian) It's used for shell execution stuff. Perl did something similar and quickly regretted it On 11/28/05, Marian Kostadinov wrote: > 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 pre= tty > > 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"" 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 an= y > > 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 sham= e > > that =3D> is already taken, as that would have done nicely. :> (or ::>= ), > > despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, conta= ining > > 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 ->, i= s ~>. > > I can't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obvious= ly > > 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 > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >