Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71335
Return-Path: <ajf@ajf.me>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 8072 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2014 19:20:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jan 2014 19:20:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.233 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me
X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.233 imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com  
Received: from [198.187.29.233] ([198.187.29.233:40640] helo=imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 04/74-02192-7077DD25 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:20:40 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C10C200089;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:20:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com
Received: from oxmail.registrar-servers.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (imap1.ox.registrar-servers.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with LMTP id chLrICgj5IYc; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:20:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.200] (unknown [176.25.177.94])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14757200057;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:20:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52DD76FF.7080700@ajf.me>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:20:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Sturgeon <pjsturgeon@gmail.com>, Robert Stoll <php@tutteli.ch>
CC: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, 
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CABDNdAGCH5i9-=4Ys1CXeNaGWGmX=mkTiq0b7BbUKtBPdQ9XVg@mail.gmail.com>	<52D71748.1090402@googlemail.com>	<52D71FAE.8030002@ajf.me>	<005001cf124f$3a40df00$aec29d00$@tutteli.ch>	<CAEp07h_KDafvOMzxVmgQq1XMeO_N3CWdFCN0vVgdxXtEn6imKg@mail.gmail.com>	<20140116110127.202079vzjsj76n7b@webmail.tutteli.ch>	<0B.B1.24763.139B7D25@pb1.pair.com>	<002001cf12da$2bfbda90$83f38fb0$@tutteli.ch>	<CAMUwpuRLfwru8XT64=j5LsNyG_DkwU_i0oHPHqfmn2HuLt+28A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGAGxbZcj91m0DgBi8ZMBWw400nem+Xkt6VbFBxSVLYWYEC0VA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFRKLUNL_4Kyxe3HRs70Xgsiy4pKo0rsEnEyPCT80B7W20U6jQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGAGxba2U0_pK0kXx-+N=34UJiLUd9ev-TNf=R+jMzzVRGzW3w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAL+t6cE5KxpfSny3pNyW1s-0v00ocC7g=ee6AKcxo1bYoBrKeg@mail.gmail.com>	<CABDNdAG60oWEkjRegE4qc6WE_KcJvv=uqtVPRzihm-42PRcgyg@mail.gmail.com>	<52DCA3E7.80602@lerdorf.com>	<52DCED71.3020207@pthreads.org>	<006301cf15f5$22f8df60$68ea9e20$@tutteli.ch> <CABDNdAEbzu+J-GQ73_2ra-tuX3aTGDPxue4_gCXu3iOnQgGpvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABDNdAEbzu+J-GQ73_2ra-tuX3aTGDPxue4_gCXu3iOnQgGpvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Introducing "Array Of" RFC
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)



On 20/01/14 18:43, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
> Syntax
> ---------
>
> There have been a lot of people suggesting various types of syntax. As
> Joe said, using generics syntax for not generics would be a travesty,
> and an overcomplication of what should be a simple feature.

Using generics-like syntax is more consistent with what we have already, 
though. Having "Array" for an array yet "Bar[]" for an Array of bar is 
confusing, especially since you'd then also logically have "Array[]". Why?

Using the generics syntax does not require adding generics. It simply 
allows a better syntax which is consistent with the existing syntax. I'd 
much rather have "Array", "Array<Bar>" and "Array<Array>" here than 
"Array", "Bar[]" and "Array[]".

It's also compatible with HHVM, which is a plus.

I don't agree that this would be "an overcomplication of what should be 
a simple feature.". It would not at all. This syntax is simpler, more 
consistent and more logical than that originally proposed.

> For those who hate OOP, array of would be a lovely way to ask for an
> array of callables. Trying to make generics happen is a great way to
> force not only new syntax, but a brand new OOP paradigm that will be
> new for EVERYONE, so ignoring that syntax and letting our functional
> and OOP folks have a nice thing shouldn't be considered a negative.

Again, generics-esque syntax doesn't mean adding generics.

It also means that, if generics were added in future, we could use 
generics here - and they'd implement the same functionality in a better 
way. :)

> This is something I hope we can all agree on. It is by no means
> confusing, but I would be happy to run a poll and get NetTuts to tweet
> it, to see if the average user is confused by this syntax. I've
> tweeted about it and had 1 out of 50ish replies saying they weren't
> sure. The confusion of 2% is something that can easily be fixed with
> documentation and time.
>
> Again, I'll be blogging about 5.6 features on NetTuts so those same
> beginner level users will know all about it, and our documentation
> will explain it for everyone else, meaning a 2% sub-section of users
> will be EASY to fix.

Why should we use a poll of some random tutorial site? This is a 
developer mailing list!

-- 
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/