Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:37981
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.46.28 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=SttZqFZU/CGzxiyny08CkdbyPHV38kgkt3dn0tcQ3MISx6hqnHL+948xTyxP0IA0/XbQg1P+/1gj5mgZhzeuBZUCbMlt8Sh82aJXO55SDRRv3Ui+wVqhZfZxe7XKmszW+WQGwV0x7SJ9hOkj9Xh225Ebc2yEybhN8cYJO6FzGq8=
Message-ID: <e2e02fe0805281243j2a1702bdj32ff6a51f5e8532f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:43:23 -0700
To: "Gregory Beaver" <greg@chiaraquartet.net>
Cc: "Stan Vassilev | FM" <sv_forums@fmethod.com>, 
	"PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <483DAE91.7020505@chiaraquartet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_18624_30503845.1212003804094"
References: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc>
	 <483DAE91.7020505@chiaraquartet.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
From: chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com ("Chris Stockton")

------=_Part_18624_30503845.1212003804094
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>
wrote:

> 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]


This is not a valid argument, in my opinion.


>
> #2 not applicable [0]


How can you dismiss whether the syntax adds benefit? If a single person
finds it beneficial it has a benefit, maybe not a majority benefit, but a
benefit none the less. Lots of people will find it easier to pick up coming
from other languages.


>
> #3 [-.5]
>  * can't google []


If we are going to use google search as a determinative for language
decisions we got some major cleanup to do, lets start by removing curly
braces..


>
>  * 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


As far as $a;[0]; goes, that is just a problem with useless contexts allowed
in PHP. Same can be done for $a;Array(0), which I doubt would cause
debugging problems (i do get your point). Really their are many places for
syntax errors, and php does allow a lot of useless syntax, like:
$a;;;$b;;;$c;;;;{{;;;{{}}}};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;    ... that is perfectly valid
code. At the end of the day the developer needs to have sufficient ability
to debug their code.


>
>
>  * 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
>

See my previous post, 20 ways of doing one thing is part of the language
already, and what makes programming interesting.


> 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


Just my opinion.

-Chris

------=_Part_18624_30503845.1212003804094--