Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38001
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.200.168 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=qfZpBUbDU7oF0Xgxb/0PeoCPsy4DUwLYZdzqQ/RprHquQQLgPl8iuBOITAWokI6lCHGGNMxDKuDBoj/cA+3odkQVtdAQs5E3A+yYAtciGscF/X6GtBarbhDgyBN0HLsFyd+nL37FVgtH2rWyHwg3NmbU9+eP9rYhVReEQ+glJGM=
Message-ID: <e2e02fe0805291332w49441cbfv109fbd06eed0dcef@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:32:39 -0700
To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?=" <johannes@php.net>
Cc: "Stan Vassilev | FM" <sv_forums@fmethod.com>, 
	"PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <1212087326.20983.22.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_22550_21231037.1212093160042"
References: <0412F6FE505049F7901EAB8C61774839@pc>
	 <1212087326.20983.22.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
From: chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com ("Chris Stockton")

------=_Part_22550_21231037.1212093160042
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Johannes Schl=FCter <johannes@php.net>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote:
> > It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> >  syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in
> parallel):
> >
> > $a =3D [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
> >
> > $b =3D ['a' =3D> 1, 'b' =3D>2];
>
> ok, in a previous post I mentioned this was discussed short time ago (in
> January to be precise) but well, then once again with more details:
>
> When I learned more about PHP one of the things I learned was that PHP
> was proud to be a bit more verbose than other languages while not as
> verbose as others. By using the array()-Syntax newcomers had a thing to
> look for when reading code which I always saw as a central design
> principal of the language.
>
> Now we can change such principals from time to time, the world changes,
> so can PHP. But for changing such principals we need a clear consensus
> imo. In the January discussion the result was around 50:50 which isn't a
> clear consensus. Back then there was a small difference between
> "committers" and "non-committers. In the group of the "committers" there
> were a few more -1 than +1 votes, within the non-committers-group it was
> the other way round (your favorite search engine should give you the
> exact numbers, don't have it at hand). Now my second assumption is that
> "committers" have thought a little bit more about language than "random"
> commenters" of course there are exceptions but I think the general
> picture should be like that. So in January this change wasn't accepted.
>
> So, now, less than half a year later the discussion restarts and we
> aren't much further, from what I see it still looks like a 50:50 to me -
> without "counting".
>
> Now to my own opinion:
>
> I read way more code than I write, code from different people using
> different coding styles etc. so I like a more verbose syntax.


My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I am
referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a success. Lets
remember that "random commenters" which I would like to refer to as PHP's
actual user base, which I would further annotate that the "committers"
graciously power, respectively; In general tend to favor introducing the
syntax. So, if you were to apply that ratio to the tens(hundreds?) of
thousands of people actually using PHP 50:50 does not not seem correct.
Further, we need to vote for the future PHP, people who have not yet learne=
d
PHP, how can this benefit them. We need to also look at other languages, th=
e
most commonly used languages, how will the migration FROM XLANG to PHP be,
as well as ZLANG to PHP. Lets have some true thought and analysis before
another feature is rejected.

I have been watching the mailing list for long as I can remember and seems
that features and such are never truly voted for. Perhaps a PHP.net voting
system should be made, so PHP can progress based off what the community
wants, not what a group of "committers" want. I respect fully the time and
effort put into the project but time to time I see the vote of PHP (in the
afore mentioned context) lost and discounted for.

Just my opinion.

-Chris

------=_Part_22550_21231037.1212093160042--