Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37978
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain chiaraquartet.net from 38.99.98.18 cause and error)
Message-ID: <483DAE91.7020505@chiaraquartet.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:12:17 -0500
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stan Vassilev | FM <sv_forums@fmethod.com>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc>
In-Reply-To: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
From: greg@chiaraquartet.net (Gregory Beaver)

I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come up
with my own litmus test for new features.

1) is the syntax missing from the language?
2) if so, does the syntax add missing functionality or significant
maintenance benefit?
2) if not, does the new syntax add significant value?

#1 no, array() is the same [-1]
#2 not applicable [0]
#3 [-.5]
 * can't google []
 * makes arrays simpler to type and take up less space
 * adds potential for confusion between array access and creation:

$a['hi'];
$a;['hi'];

both are now suddenly valid PHP

 * syncs with javascript and other languages
 * opens pandoras box - PHP is simpler than Perl because there are not
20 ways of doing the same thing with different punctuation shorthands

So I find #1 is -1, #2 is 0, #3 is about -.5

Although the idea is somewhat attractive, I've found no drawbacks to
array() syntax, and plenty of dangers with adding any new alternate
syntax, and this ultimately makes my vote -1

Greg