Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75155
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.167 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2581914CA55406274C0830AE2040@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
In-Reply-To: <FF875EF5-AC89-49DE-808A-DA734FBFD9BA@ajf.me>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:27:55 +0200
CC: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>,
 Xinchen Hui <xinchen.h@zend.com>,
 David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>,
 Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <CA+9eiLtCyuMVN-CN_hnLCCij4nymUiKEa26K_S_qM1PN-g-4HA@mail.gmail.com> <FF875EF5-AC89-49DE-808A-DA734FBFD9BA@ajf.me>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Wired constant expression syntax and bug
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

That wasn't in the RFC because there still was the IS_CONSTANT_ARRAY I =
removed only months later (and replaced with AST) to fix some bugs.
It's only at that moment where I now could add that syntax.

Bob

Am 30.6.2014 um 23:05 schrieb Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>:
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 20:06, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Hi Bob,
>>=20
>> I'm wondered why you introduced this wired syntax in PHP-5.6.
>=20
> Do you mean weird?
>=20
>>=20
>> class FooBar {
>>             const bar =3D ["bar" =3D> 3]["bar"];
>> }
>>=20
>> It wasn't a part of RFC, it wasn't covered by tests, and it actually
>> doesn't make a lot of sense. May be it's better to remove it?
>=20
> I disagree, it makes perfect sense:
>=20
> class FooBar {
>   const FOO =3D 3;
>   const BAR =3D [
>       3 =3D> =91qux=92,
>       4 =3D> =91bang=92,
>       7 =3D> =91theta=92,
>       9 =3D> =91epsilon=92
>   ][FOO];
> }
>=20
> ?: and ? only work when there are just two possibilities.
>=20
> It is surprising that it wasn=92t in the RFC though, I suspect that =
was just an oversight on Bob=92s part.
> --
> Andrea Faulds
> http://ajf.me/