Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34844
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 66.249.92.171 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        b=wkWyE61pB5oo0W69bnzQZbbL3WTbHeMRIcLWo9zos/1FW4psESYkV1jDBU+UEOEbbeLXbEaKUmXMSrOJ5GzlSavMqrp1evhEJj1lYfBhHRm5HtWdGjSieHWmSb2vJ3tB5QOQBRMAyYM8xh5TMAFKOD6h9fIqv3gxSaTCPCXDyaY=
Cc: "Stanislav Malyshev" <stas@zend.com>,
 "PHP Internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <F1AB67F6-4A2D-4A64-BF45-B828586FC27F@googlemail.com>
To: Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7f3ed2c30801210524j5be0d1cbv4585ed1fae437909@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:20 +0000
References: <479114FD.6010005@zend.com> <7f3ed2c30801210524j5be0d1cbv4585ed1fae437909@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] nowdocs again
From: foolistbar@googlemail.com (Geoffrey Sneddon)


On 21 Jan 2008, at 13:24, Hannes Magnusson wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2008 10:07 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I remember the topic of 'nowdocs' (if you don't remember what it is,
>> read on) was already discussed, but nothing really happened about it.
>> For those who just recently woke up from cryogenic sleep :),  
>> "nowdocs"
>> are heredocs extension that does not interpret the content (think  
>> single
>> quotes instead of double quotes). Should look something like:
>> $foo = <<<'END'
>> blah$fooblah
>> END
>> unline regular heredocs, $foo would be left as-is. I think now it's
>> good to add it to 5.3 (and I like 'FOO' syntax best of all variants).
>
> Without turning this into color of the bikeshed flame, I'd go with the
> orginal <<<~LABEL syntax, I think quoting the label will be easier to
> confuse with heredocs (I had to read your example twice, thought you
> accidentally used the heredoc syntax..).
> It is also easier to document, and search for, <<<~ than <<< 'foo'.
>
> But I trust you read the old thread and picked <<< 'foo' for a reason,
> so feel free to ignore my comment.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the old thread, but I prefer <<<~.

>> Any objections to this?
>
> No. +1 from me.

Nor from me, +1.


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>