Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52995
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 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:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=RI1WvzVKqTwyhctHCbOD9y3ccE+3xIfab3H0Iamm2982cSx/cE9J7HFEvQNUFlbADH
         Tp0QiSuP3jWluDpIoj0u3tJaTFKFy5LgtPVmC8LohExbVxdQ3AjUEZZ6qzMyIqd7AOsc
         aLUnf3GOo/XT/I19K9HvKxGNXV17qC+V460E0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1181529113.20110605190617@cypressintegrated.com>
References: <1181529113.20110605190617@cypressintegrated.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 18:58:54 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTikM=ZookZ14oFs1nVV6M=Dd9drLTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sanford Whiteman <sandy@cypressintegrated.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=005045015be81b63cc04a4ffc6ac
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Object and Array Literals
From: dukeofgaming@gmail.com (dukeofgaming)

--005045015be81b63cc04a4ffc6ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Sanford Whiteman <
sandy@cypressintegrated.com> wrote:
>
> -- I do not feel that the acronym JSON has any clarifying nor edifying
> place in the RFC describing this syntax.
>
> Rather, I would suggest one of the following:
>
> =B7 JavaScript-like [object|array] literal syntax
> =B7 bare-bracket [object|array] literal syntax
> =B7 short [object|array] literal syntax
> =B7 compact [object|array] ...
> =B7 quick [object|array] ...
> =B7 colon-pair [object|array] ...
>
> I have actually been excited about the discussion of this feature area
> and anticipate my eventual +1 if "JSON" could be removed from the RFC.
> Even  though  the  term  doesn't  affect the way the feature works, by
> upvoting  the  RFC one is approving of wording that may make it to the
> general public, and I think this would be bad for PHP.


> It  might  also  be  noted (h/t David Vega) that Ruby adopted a syntax
> similar  to  that  proposed here and completely avoided using the term
> JSON  in  final documentation, as I hope will be done with PHP even if
> this RFC continues to use the term.
>

Bravo for ponting that out, your argument has cleared my mind a little whil=
e
trying to understand this side (I'm actually against the JSON
interoperability argument [because it does not make sense to me], but not
the syntax).

After reading this new RFC and pondering about the JSONy implications, the
multi-part conclusion that I reached is that:

a) JSON is actually being mentioned to advocate for the syntax with for the
sake of *familiarity*.

b) Interoperability is being confused with familiarity.

c) Actual interoperability of the syntax with JSON is just a happy
coincidence (same as with Ruby)

d) In no context this notation could function as JSON and PHP at the same
time, mainly because PHP requires tags

e) There is a strong resistance to change, I bet the detractors of this
short syntax (even with the ":") would change their opinion after using it,
just the way some of us used to hate the idea of namespaces with "\" and
after using it changed our opinion (specially with the autoloading standard
that actually reflects file structure, e.g. in Symfony2).

f) If JSON ceased to exist in this very moment, supporters of the syntax
would be still supporting it and perhaps detractors would accept it.

The effect of mentioning JSON, and implying direct compatibility with JSON
technologies and JSON itself is just adding FUD.

+1 to removing references to JSON from the RFC, because "[ ]", "{ }" and ":=
"
make enough sense by themselves.

Regards,

David Vega

--005045015be81b63cc04a4ffc6ac--