Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:27792 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6583 invoked by uid 1010); 5 Feb 2007 07:48:28 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6568 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2007 07:48:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Feb 2007 07:48:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=antony@zend.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=antony@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.25.124.162 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: antony@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.25.124.162 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [212.25.124.162] ([212.25.124.162:35783] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/EC-18726-B41E6C54 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:48:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 17918 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2007 07:46:45 -0000 Received: from internal.zend.office (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (10.1.1.1) by internal.zend.office with SMTP; 5 Feb 2007 07:46:45 -0000 Message-ID: <45C6E144.20102@zend.com> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:48:20 +0300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (X11/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Gutmans CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <011701c7482d$a39f6910$6500a8c0@zend.2k> In-Reply-To: <011701c7482d$a39f6910$6500a8c0@zend.2k> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Syntactic improvement to array From: antony@zend.com (Antony Dovgal) On 02/04/2007 10:25 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Hi, > > I thought I may have brought this up a long time ago but couldn't find anything in the archives. > For a long time already I've been thinking about possibly adding a new syntax for array(...) which would be shorter. I'd suggest > [...]. While I am usually not in favor of having more than one way to do things, I think it'd look much more elegant especially (but > not only) for nested arrays. It doesn't look more elegant to me. -1 -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal