# AW:  Re: PDM Meeting Notes

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/20287
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/20287
- Started by Matthias Pigulla on 2005-11-24T09:20:27+00:00
- Messages: 3
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #20287 — Matthias Pigulla — 2005-11-24T09:20:27+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/20287#20287

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jani Taskinen [mailto:sniper@iki.fi] 

>      We could start with making it an E_ERR..erm..E_STRICT notice
>      if you use {} with arrays or [] with strings. And really separate
>      them in PHP 6. But does it make any sense?

At least some people here would appreciate it :)

This would be consistent with what has been advised in the past, and making [] on strings an `E_STRICT` is the logical step after deprecating it as of PHP4 and before disallowing it in PHP6.

Maybe there's more code out there incorrectly using [] on strings rather than using {}, but that doesn't make it more right. And nobody would complain about an E_STRICT.

>      Removing {} is ultimately the right thing to do, whatever the
>      anti-purists may think. 

That is, purism is to have as little different language elements as possible at the cost of overloading? At least I agree that [] and {} being the same is not pure.

> "{$str{1}}" vs. "{$str[1]}", you decide..

Admittedly this is ugly to read but the same thing on the other side is $var[$x][$y] vs. $var[$x]{$y}.

Just as checking if there's more code out there using $x[1] or $x{1}, you could check if {} is used more in string contexts or in standalone expressions (not seriously).

-mp.

Oh, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism: "Linguistic purism is the opposition to any changes of a given language, or the desire to undo some changes the language has undergone in the past." So what do the anti-purists want here? "Anti-purism: A puristic reaction to a manifestation of purism, directed at the removal of neologisms originating from a puristic intervention."

---

## #20292 — Jani Taskinen — 2005-11-24T11:22:56+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/20287#20292 · In reply to: #20287

>
> Admittedly this is ugly to read but the same thing on the other side is
> $var[$x][$y] vs. $var[$x]{$y}.

     True. But having two purposes for {} is not good either.
     And most of the time it's up to the coders how they use the existing
     features..so this is all pointless. :)

> Oh, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism: "Linguistic
> purism is the opposition to any changes of a given language, or the desire
> to undo some changes the language has undergone in the past." So what do
> the anti-purists want here? "Anti-purism: A puristic reaction to a
> manifestation of purism, directed at the removal of neologisms originating
> from a puristic intervention."

     Damn wikipedia. :)

     --Jani

---

## #20313 — Andrei Zmievski — 2005-11-24T19:50:55+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/20287#20313 · In reply to: #20292

Actually, three: code blocks, interpolation of complex variables, and 
string indexing.

- Andrei



>     True. But having two purposes for {} is not good either.