Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53023
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain seancoates.com from 64.15.79.181 cause and error)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikM=ZookZ14oFs1nVV6M=Dd9drLTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:59:37 -0400
Cc: Sanford Whiteman <sandy@cypressintegrated.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A869AE63-09F5-48B1-97AE-D227DBF941C4@seancoates.com>
References: <1181529113.20110605190617@cypressintegrated.com> <BANLkTikM=ZookZ14oFs1nVV6M=Dd9drLTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dukeofgaming <dukeofgaming@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Object and Array Literals
From: sean@seancoates.com (Sean Coates)

> a) JSON is actually being mentioned to advocate for the syntax with =
for the
> sake of *familiarity*.
> b) Interoperability is being confused with familiarity.

My goal is interoperability. Familiarity is a factor, definitely.

> c) Actual interoperability of the syntax with JSON is just a happy
> coincidence (same as with Ruby)

I disagree; see below.

> d) In no context this notation could function as JSON and PHP at the =
same
> time, mainly because PHP requires tags

I don't think they could be interchangeable, programmatically, as files, =
but copying and pasting from PHP to curl for ElasticSearch would have =
saved me hours of back-and-forth over the past months.

> 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).

Absolutely agree. In addition, for me to see the value in this, it took =
more than just knowing how it worked, but immersing myself in this =
syntax (really wanting it).

When short array syntax was first proposed, I didn't care. As I've said =
here a couple times, this is not about saving 5 characters by changing =
"array(" into "[", but about many other things.

> 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.
>=20
> The effect of mentioning JSON, and implying direct compatibility with =
JSON
> technologies and JSON itself is just adding FUD.

I don't want blanket compatibility. I do want to be able to write PHP =
that *CAN* be passed off to third-parties verbatim, if care is taken to =
do so. Most of the time I use JSON, this care is not required, though. I =
don't think it's FUD, but I do see your point in that the term "JSON" is =
strangely offensive to some, and I would be willing to remove it (but =
not if only you two think this way).

> +1 to removing references to JSON from the RFC, because "[ ]", "{ }" =
and ":"
> make enough sense by themselves.

S