Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74691
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <6E3D6B3F-1BD6-42A2-B59C-12B9D6D597ED@ajf.me>
 <538B8364.6000903@gmail.com>
 <CADajX4DJQZUnM5vHN_aLHCu6i_mg--sFEvrw9qrySL1o_yiyYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:38:55 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Message-ID: <op.xgtd25r2c9evq2@nikita-optiplex-9020>
In-Reply-To: <CADajX4DJQZUnM5vHN_aLHCu6i_mg--sFEvrw9qrySL1o_yiyYA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Bare Name Array
From: inefedor@gmail.com ("Nikita Nefedov")

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:56:03 +0400, Adam Harvey <aharvey@php.net> wrote:=


> On 1 June 2014 12:47, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2014 18:59, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>>
>>> The first is a less cumbersome syntax for arrays. At present, string=
  =

>>> keys
>>> in arrays are declared like this:
>>>
>>> =E2=80=9CstringKey=E2=80=9D =3D> 3,
>>>
>>> [...] Where the key fits the profile of IS_STRING, this RFC proposes=
  =

>>> that
>>> you can do this instead:
>>>
>>> stringKey: 3,
>>
>>
>> Interestingly, I notice Ruby's hash syntax has two variants very  =

>> similar to
>> this [http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.2/Hash.html].
>>
>> However, in that case, the unquoted version represents a use of Ruby'=
s
>> special "Symbol" type, which is actually a different fundamental type=
  =

>> from a
>> String. So the following actually defines a 2-element hash, with one =
 =

>> Symbol
>> key and one String key:
>>
>> foo =3D { myKey: 'bar', 'myKey' =3D> 'bob' }
>> =3D> {:myKey=3D>"bar", "myKey"=3D>"bob"}
>
> You've mostly pre-empted the question I wanted to ask. :)
>
> Andrea, did you consider implementing something more like Ruby's
> symbols, rather than a variation on the existing array literal syntax?=

> I feel like that might solve any potential ambiguities in terms of
> constant resolution (as mentioned in another subthread), wouldn't
> require a separate [foo: bar] variant on the existing syntax, and may
> be useful in other contexts too (such as array dereferencing).
>
> As for the array dereferencing syntax: it should probably be an RFC
> and patch on its own. To be honest, my initial reaction is negative =E2=
=80=94
> I think the proposed syntax blurs the lines between arrays and objects=

> (I know it's a different digraph, but it's going to look really
> similar when scanning code), and I'm not yet sold on it being
> particularly useful.

Hi,

Actually Ruby's symbol is like PHP's string. It's immutable and it's  =

interned. Unlike Ruby's strings which are mutable. So the question is in=
  =

the syntax only...