Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52667
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=gtuL/NYqUYydPTli74aR75iTW733JPg2DykVT8Sde87k5yHh2io+lhlRqzrEn9dzXq
         WT754gVmm+bcV6Z0uhrpvatRwWxBPmCu0tPfkRn0viRIJRWAC1EwBGXlnNuOGRxpN71i
         Jb6wZ7fOMulSdajihfugCneklPvJ+EwoorO+M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimF02Gy0zM-JNr-6uKsNJY+aV5eAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE5368A.6050603@moonspot.net>
	<op.vwea48kbidpuyk@clk-0081.clk-domain>
	<BANLkTimtbkZGOx2w9sYCO+wja5K2sD8c=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DE62B09.6070308@croscon.com>
	<BANLkTimF02Gy0zM-JNr-6uKsNJY+aV5eAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:20:22 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinCuv761Sk4-zVcMH1HcPH1os2hTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcel Esser <marcel.esser@croscon.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

btwr, I did not mean to kill the discussions but it would be awesome
if every participant would read the past discussions about this RFC
and replies accordingly.

Yes, there are alternatives and other needs related to this RFC, but
it is really time to go with it or forget it.

Cheers,

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> can we please (please!) focus on voting on the RFC and avoid an
> enumeration of all possible syntax, formats, ideas, trolls&co we had
> in the last decade? Simply vote and let us move one.
>
> Thanks for your understanding,
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Marcel Esser <marcel.esser@croscon.com> w=
rote:
>> My kneejerk reaction to this, as no one particularly important, is to no=
t
>> allow mixing those syntaxes.
>>
>> I looked at the RFC a minute ago, and I read a reference to a parallel
>> solution to this being named parameters. Which, I think, is not accurate=
.
>> The problem with the array() notation is definitely at deep nesting leve=
ls.
>> The fact that arrays as arguments suddenly look nicer is basically just =
a
>> bonus. I really just don't want to type array() twenty-five times in the
>> same data structure.
>>
>> PS: That is not to say that I wouldn't love named parameters; I would ad=
ore
>> them. I can't count how many times I've thought that a router would bene=
fit
>> enormously from being able to do that. However, using an array instead
>> worked fine - and that is cool.
>>
>> - M.
>>
>> On 6/1/2011 8:01 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>>>
>>> My personal feel about this is that yes, short arrays are not bad, but
>>> things like
>>>
>>> $a =3D new A;
>>> $a[array()];
>>>
>>> just scare the crap of me when I see them. To me PHP is easy on syntax
>>> and it's good. When I see Ruby or Python code with all it's crazy
>>> magic I feel sick. Still one day I will have to learn one, but that
>>> doesn't mean PHP should go that way too (i'm not alien to system
>>> languages, I had some practice with Pascal, Delphi& =A0C some years ago=
,
>>> just wanted to go the WEB path so migrated to PHP).
>>>
>>> If it's not too much, it would be good to avoid such strange
>>> constructs at all, because people are mean and they tend to do bad
>>> things in code.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>



--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org