Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37940 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44070 invoked from network); 28 May 2008 06:29:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 May 2008 06:29:19 -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] ([89.208.40.236:39281] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 22/A3-15519-FBBFC384 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 02:29:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.34] (ppp91-78-105-211.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [91.78.105.211]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863C9640089; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:29:16 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <483CFBAB.8030400@daylessday.org> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:28:59 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc> <87.77.15519.9E47C384@pb1.pair.com> <97.F8.15519.1229C384@pb1.pair.com> <483CF9E9.2010803@daylessday.org> <483CFAE0.203@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <483CFAE0.203@zend.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...] From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 28.05.2008 10:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your >> products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP >> version to the latest one, right? >> That makes it even more useless. > > That's great argument. So nice to know everything we do for 5.3 and 6 is > completely useless :) No, THAT is really great argument. Compare "everything we do" with "backward incompatible syntax that duplicates already existing one, but 5 characters shorter" and find two differences. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal