Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52576 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81101 invoked from network); 31 May 2011 20:29:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 May 2011 20:29:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mike.vanriel@naenius.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain naenius.com designates 83.96.159.14 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mike.vanriel@naenius.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.96.159.14 linux35.webawere.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [83.96.159.14] ([83.96.159.14:46251] helo=linux35.webawere.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5E/6A-25701-BBF45ED4 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:29:48 -0400 Received: from 212-127-174-68.cable.quicknet.nl ([212.127.174.68] helo=[192.168.1.109]) by linux35.webawere.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QRVZN-0006Pu-Fx; Tue, 31 May 2011 22:29:41 +0200 Message-ID: <4DE54FB4.8070309@naenius.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:29:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Coates CC: Brian Moon , PHP internals References: <4DE5368A.6050603@moonspot.net> <2BFFEAC1-395E-4101-9452-002E63DCFD91@seancoates.com> In-Reply-To: <2BFFEAC1-395E-4101-9452-002E63DCFD91@seancoates.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux) From: mike.vanriel@naenius.com (Mike van Riel) On 05/31/2011 08:52 PM, Sean Coates wrote: > I'm one of the people who've brought it up on Twitter. Today's discussion seems to have earned some traction, which is a step in the right direction, I believe. > >> I would prefer (as Rasmus pointed out) not to start a long discussion about it. Primarily I would be curious if anyone on the lists (from the RFC wiki page) below would like to change your vote or if you are not listed below and would like to be counted, that would be great too. > At risk of turning this into a longer-than-necessary discussion, I believe a new RFC is required at this point. Making [ and ] work as (T_ARRAY, '(') and (')'), respectively is no longer good enough, for the main reason you've pointed out: JSON is becoming ubiquitous; actual first-class JSON would be very valuable to me. > > I would be happy to find some time to participate in RFC reform for this subject. > > That said: +1