Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34758
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain activestate.com designates 209.17.146.130 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <47880FBE.6030508@activestate.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:22 -0800
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>
CC: internals@lists.php.net
References: <1200066425.7376.9.camel@johannes.nop>	 <fe05d1540801110937y79018630p19a44f9c97abfe83@mail.gmail.com>	 <1200075842.16083.44.camel@johannes.nop>	 <fe05d1540801111027n7633aa50nb3801359b39cf9ef@mail.gmail.com>	 <1200077257.12559.7.camel@sbarrow-desktop> <4787BE7C.6080205@zend.com>	 <1200078780.12559.14.camel@sbarrow-desktop>	 <4787E50A.1000108@daylessday.org> <fe05d1540801111408w38938b4dqa7b821c25e957e0f@mail.gmail.com> <4787EF30.8000306@daylessday.org> <4787F9A4.2080700@activestate.com> <4788052B.6040101@chiaraquartet.net>
In-Reply-To: <4788052B.6040101@chiaraquartet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SUMMARY: Array syntax
From: jeffg@activestate.com (Jeff Griffiths)

Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Jeff Griffiths wrote:
>> Antony Dovgal wrote:
>> ...
>>> Well, to me it matters whether the author is going to care of the
>>> thing he's proposing or he's going to disappear right after it's
>>> implemented.
>> I didn't realize there was a section of the code flagged 'syntactic
>> sugar' and only a few people maintained that part. it also seems
>> ridiculous to debate a syntax *addition* such as this in terms of
>> maintainability. Is it really is hard to maintain this patch to the
>> parser? How hard is it to maintain this:
>>
>> $array[] = $foo;
>>
>> ...vs any other part of the codebase?
> 
> Whoa, slow down cowboy!

Ok!

> Any change to the parser can have unexpected and even bizarre
> ramifications in code.  For instance,
> 
> $a = $b([0]);
> 
> would become perfectly legal syntax, and although it is pretty to those
> of us who pine after ASCII art, its action is not as obvious as:
> 
> $a = $b(array(0));

That's a matter of perspective, I parse JS code as easily as I do the 
above, because that's what I'm used to. I do think this type of 
'terseness vs readability' debate about this syntax addition is 
perfectly valid and I think *users* of PHP like myself have a place in 
that debate.

...
> Now, this may sound blunt, but the tone of your message suggests you
> haven't worked much with parser generators or lexer generators in C.
> They're one of the more quirky and finicky aspects of PHP internals, and
> seemingly simple changes can result in ridiculously complex problems.

You would be right about that, but I guess I had assumed the patch was 
solid seeing as no-one has argued against it based on its technical 
merits. I did qualify the above: "...vs any other part of the codebase?".

If there is a technical reason why you shouldn't commit this patch ( 
it's buggy, etc ) then I am happy to concede the point to people who 
know much more about this than I do. Most of these threads on this 
proposal seem to be based on the usability / readability / ephemeral 
qualities it will bring to PHP, and not on whether it works or not.

> I am used to arrays, and find them intuitive.  I am a bit concerned
> about code like this rearing its head:
> 
> if (1) {
>     $a = [
>         [
>             ['a' => 1, 3],
>             ($b = 3),
>         ]
>      ];
> } else {
>     $a = [
>         [
>             ['b' => 1, 3]
>         ]
>      ];
> }

I agree, that's a bit nasty. =)

> "bracket hell" is not something I've associated with PHP much, and the
> new syntax would definitely make it possible, but would also simplify
> the amount of spurious stuff on the screen for me in my work if used well.
> 
> So, I am +0.5 for [] syntax in principle.  I have not examined the patch.

Assuming the patch is fine ( which I have happily done so far ) it seems 
this proposal is at best controversial.

JeffG