Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:32710 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89037 invoked by uid 1010); 9 Oct 2007 07:18:27 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89019 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2007 07:18:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Oct 2007 07:18:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:35406] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C1/C2-04247-33B2B074 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:18:21 -0400 Received: from [192.168.3.38] (unknown [212.42.62.198]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FF3640163; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:17:57 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <470B2B24.30200@daylessday.org> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:17:56 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Zakhlestin CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <200710042005.30734.larry@garfieldtech.com> <285930281.20071006200938@marcus-boerger.de> <200710061338.47307.larry@garfieldtech.com> <4707D8AA.9060905@daylessday.org> <00D6A914-81DE-406C-8DD0-9577A60DB496@gravitonic.com> <470B12A6.20802@daylessday.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] substr/array_slice in [] From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 09.10.2007 10:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: >> How come? >> It looks like you're reading $bar[':5'], but forgot the quotes. >> On the other side, what could be easier than a function call? > > operator is definitely easier because it lets us reuse the same syntax > for strings and arrays (and people would need to learn one operator > instead of 2 functions and 2 different concatenation operators) Yes, I see this quite often in the list: "let's invent a new thing instead of an old thing, that would make peoples' life easier". But you forget that both the old and the new thing would co-exist and people would have to learn BOTH, which definitely doesn't make any life easier. >> > And if we were concerned that concerned about duplicate >> > functionality, we probably wouldn't have SimpleXML and similar things. >> >> Mistakes done in the past do not mean we should continue to do them in the future. > > simplexml is a mistake? :-/ No, I don't think SimpleXML in particular is a mistake, but encouraging people to do mistakes just because they've done it in the past is quite.. unreasonable. That said, why are we still discussing this? From what I understood, most of the core developers agreed that there are no reasons to implement this syntax, so we're just wasting our time and traffic here. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal