Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37973
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain sci.fi from 63.208.196.178 cause and error)
Message-ID: <483D95A5.1040206@sci.fi>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:25:57 +0300
Reply-To: jani.taskinen@iki.fi
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike <ipso@snappymail.ca>
CC: Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <1211994665.7621.39.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1211994665.7621.39.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
From: jani.taskinen@sci.fi (Jani Taskinen)

Exactly. Open this can of worms and soon PHP is something else than easy 
to learn.. someone already mentioned that {} thing for objects.. :)

Sidenote: There are more important things to solve in PHP 5.3 (and 
especially HEAD) than adding this little syntax sugar..

--Jani


Mike wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google
> for "Array" and learn something about it. 
> 
> 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. 
> 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' => 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
>> 'bar']
>>
>> Here is why,
>>
>> Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in php
>> then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
>> Array('foo' => 'bar'), verse ['foo' => 'bar'], most people will more easily
>> understand the latter when entering into the language fresh.
>>
>> I.E.:
>> $f = Array('foo' => 'bar');
>> $f('foo'); // comes to mind first right, might not for a php developer but
>> for a new comer maybe?
>>
>> $f = ['foo' => 'bar'];
>> $f['foo']; // great
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 well
>> as existing code, then let it be. I for one will change every line of code I
>> have that uses the Array() syntax for the shorter, more WIDELY readable []
>> syntax.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> $oStd = {'foo' => 'bar'};
>> echo $oStd->foo;
>>
>> ... doesn't even look all that bad but feels wrong and dirty, I think I
>> would rather (object) ['foo' => 'bar']; :p
>>
>> -Chris