Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:21932 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74999 invoked by uid 1010); 18 Feb 2006 23:20:48 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74982 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2006 23:20:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Feb 2006 23:20:48 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.38.9.232 gw2.emini.dk Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from ([192.38.9.232:1672] helo=gw2.emini.dk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id EC/E2-23065-FCBA7F34 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:20:48 -0500 Received: from foxbox (IGLD-84-228-50-112.inter.net.il [84.228.50.112]) by gw2.emini.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2303A3E64; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:20:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <056001c634e1$f8520a90$6402a8c0@foxbox> Reply-To: "Steph Fox" To: "internals" , "Andi Gutmans" References: <045701c634af$050b5df0$6402a8c0@foxbox><7.0.1.0.2.20060218112459.03e617c0@zend.com><04e401c634db$69a82ff0$6402a8c0@foxbox><7.0.1.0.2.20060218144712.03e32c18@zend.com><051f01c634de$45c12df0$6402a8c0@foxbox><7.0.1.0.2.20060218145604.03e678a8@zend.com><053c01c634e0$9a426900$6402a8c0@foxbox> <7.0.1.0.2.20060218151346.046275d0@zend.com> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:20:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks From: steph@zend.com ("Steph Fox") Your chief argument was that having two ways to do things is intrinsically perl-ish and un-PHP-like. My chief argument is that the single existing way isn't user-friendly. Your secondary argument was that nested breaks are rarely used in PHP anyway. I think your secondary argument is directly related to my chief argument. Is all, I'll quit now. If nobody on the dev team cares about it any more (despite the fact that all of them liked the idea at the time save Ilia and Jani) then it's going nowhere anyway. - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" To: "Steph Fox" ; "internals" Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks > Argh, re-read my first email. I gave my reasoning there... > > At 03:11 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >>Erm - I'd consider myself one of 'the devs' as far as that goes. Perhaps I >>wasn't very clear. >> >>There is a feature in PHP that could easily be made more user-friendly, >>and we have before us a patch that could do that. >> >>I'm failing to understand why it's problematic to use it. >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" >>To: "Steph Fox" ; "internals" >>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:56 AM >>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks >> >> >>>Yeah but my point was that even people for who it isn't scary (the devs) >>>don't use it very much :) It's just something which isn't needed very >>>often. So we're wasting lots of bandwidth on something which not many >>>will use anyway :) >>> >>>Andi >>> >>>At 02:54 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >>>>Agreed it's not used very much. That's because people like me think it's >>>>scary :) and that's _exactly_ what I was trying to say. >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" >>>>To: "Steph Fox" ; "internals" >>>>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:48 AM >>>>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's just something which to begin with isn't used that much. >>>>>Grep'ed phpweb/ for it and found 0 occurrences of break n; and I >>>>>believe the people developing it would be the ones who would know how >>>>>to use it. >>>>> >>>>>Andi >>>>> >>>>>At 02:33 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >>>>>>I personally find working with numbers difficult, which is why I'm >>>>>>wholly in support of this patch. >>>>>> >>>>>>I doubt I'm the only PHP user with that issue, due to the 'ease of >>>>>>use' that allows people with no history of computer science to write >>>>>>useful scripts (for which, thank you all). But I wouldn't expect a >>>>>>great deal of sympathy on that point from CS graduates. >>>>>> >>>>>>nb I think implementing goto/equivalent itself is a fairly bad idea - >>>>>>I appear to be in the minority on that issue. But I don't see any >>>>>>problem with introducing labels, I just see it as a more user-friendly >>>>>>way of allowing nested breaks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Am I very wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" >>>>>>To: "Steph Fox" ; "internals" >>>>>> >>>>>>Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:30 PM >>>>>>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that in 1997 when break/continue n where implemented it would >>>>>>>have been a nice idea, but at this stage except for being more >>>>>>>elegant than break/continue n it doesn't truly add anything >>>>>>>substantial to PHP (and as you already mentioned it's orthogonal to >>>>>>>the goto discussion). I think having more than 1 way of doing the >>>>>>>same thing, in this case, might just end up confusing people >>>>>>>developing with PHP (i.e. the Perl way :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just for the record I am coming at this from an open mind. Dmitry did >>>>>>>spend time on this patch, etc... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'd recommend to bed it once and for all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At 09:16 AM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote: >>>>>>>>Guys and guyess, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sara and Dmitry's patch to introduce labelled breaks was discussed >>>>>>>>on internals@ ever-so-briefly at the beginning of December, but >>>>>>>>there was never any decision made over it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Given that practically everyone who survived the preceding GOTO >>>>>>>>discussion seemed to think it was a good idea at the time, could you >>>>>>>>please re-visit it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed to talking >>>>>>>>about GOTO, which is unrelated) and either OK it or put it to bed >>>>>>>>for once and for all? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Relevant summary is at >>>>>>>>http://www.zend.com/zend/week/week265.php#Heading3 >>>>>>>>Relevant patch is at http://www.zend.com/zend/week/pat/index.php >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And if it's worth anything, +1 from me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>- Steph >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>>>>>http://www.eset.com >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>>>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________ >>>>> >>>>>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>>>http://www.eset.com >>> >>>-- >>>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >>>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >>> >>> >>>__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________ >>> >>>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>http://www.eset.com >>> > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > __________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >