Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37972
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain snappymail.ca designates 216.139.220.195 as permitted sender)
To: Chris Stockton <chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com>
Cc: Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <e2e02fe0805280856r553fe343la015cf82e12d4b07@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc>
	 <87.77.15519.9E47C384@pb1.pair.com> <97.F8.15519.1229C384@pb1.pair.com>
	 <483C94EA.90507@zend.com> <483C95DD.6000006@sci.fi>
	 <alpine.DEB.0.98.0805280828340.32607@kossu.ez.no>
	 <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE01A53A06@us-ex1.zend.net>
	 <e2e02fe0805280856r553fe343la015cf82e12d4b07@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-l5Tx3XVCv/Yp4obubg17"
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:11:05 -0700
Message-ID: <1211994665.7621.39.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
From: ipso@snappymail.ca (Mike)

--=-l5Tx3XVCv/Yp4obubg17
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.

I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return
anything useful either.=20

Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google
for "Array" and learn something about it.=20

How many man hours are going to be wasted:
1. Searching for what the heck [] actually is.
2. Explaining to people that [] is the same as Array.
3. Changing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.=20
4. Enforcing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.
5. Trying to change [] back to Array in hopes of getting code to work on
older versions of PHP.
6. All the man hours wasted on it ALREADY that I'm sure could be much
better spent getting PHP 5.3/6.0 out.

There are enough roadblocks and other things to worry about already, why
would we want to add MORE? Especially for something with so little to
gain (if anything at all).

This isn't about "well if you don't like it, don't use it" either,
because no matter what it will be forced on people who don't like it
eventually. People who like it will be constantly changing Array() -> []
and people who hate it will be constantly changing [] -> Array(). More
wasted time.

Just my two cents.

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 08:56 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> +1 for: ['foo' =3D> 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
> 'bar']
>=20
> Here is why,
>=20
> Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in p=
hp
> then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
> Array('foo' =3D> 'bar'), verse ['foo' =3D> 'bar'], most people will more =
easily
> understand the latter when entering into the language fresh.
>=20
> I.E.:
> $f =3D Array('foo' =3D> 'bar');
> $f('foo'); // comes to mind first right, might not for a php developer bu=
t
> for a new comer maybe?
>=20
> $f =3D ['foo' =3D> 'bar'];
> $f['foo']; // great
>=20
> Gives our users options, and does not break any existing code or enforce =
new
> programming paradigm. The change is minor and no real cost in performance=
.
>=20
> As for existing users, I find the completely negative comments a real
> hindrance on the evolution of php as a language. If something does not
> damage the language but will offer benefits for a broad user base, as wel=
l
> as existing code, then let it be. I for one will change every line of cod=
e I
> have that uses the Array() syntax for the shorter, more WIDELY readable [=
]
> syntax.
>=20
> My only curiosity is if this will turn into a ecmascript morphism and we
> wind up with a new object proposal instead of stdclass, like
>=20
> $oStd =3D {'foo' =3D> 'bar'};
> echo $oStd->foo;
>=20
> ... doesn't even look all that bad but feels wrong and dirty, I think I
> would rather (object) ['foo' =3D> 'bar']; :p
>=20
> -Chris
--=20
Mike <ipso@snappymail.ca>

--=-l5Tx3XVCv/Yp4obubg17
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkg9kiQACgkQMhKjsejwBhjjPACbBQwLPa/GHc/+alTA9ZvADqk3
pnAAn179xyUCUFAkjsEieb1LqZzn40A/
=gj9A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-l5Tx3XVCv/Yp4obubg17--