I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do agree
with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 21:44 America/New_York, George
Schlossnagle wrote:
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, LingWitt@insightbb.com
wrote:I thank you for your open-mindedness, but I must admit I was in the
fault. I supplied a version from a modern language such as C++.No need to be a dick about it. Calling C++ 'modern' is about as
sensible as calling C 'ancient'. Plenty of applications and operating
systems are still written in C (not C++). Apache, PHP, Perl, Linux
and FreeBSD are some examples. Rasmus responded correctly to your
question by noting that PHP's for() syntax is identical to C's for()
syntax. Which it is.
LingWitt@insightbb.com wrote:
I was sincere. I meant "modern" to mean more recent. Though, I do
agree with the correlation between your interpretation and response. I
apologize.
Yes, we can tell that you had a different, less offensive definition of
"modern." Our understanding is tripled, in fact. :-P
I'd really like to be the last poster in this thread, simply because
it's gone into flame world, filling my mailbox when not invited. This'll
never change, at least in PHP proper, so please, don't fight about it...
Thanks,
Ken
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 21:44 America/New_York, George
Schlossnagle wrote:On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 09:12 PM, LingWitt@insightbb.com
wrote:I thank you for your open-mindedness, but I must admit I was in the
fault. I supplied a version from a modern language such as C++.No need to be a dick about it. Calling C++ 'modern' is about as
sensible as calling C 'ancient'. Plenty of applications and
operating systems are still written in C (not C++). Apache, PHP,
Perl, Linux and FreeBSD are some examples. Rasmus responded
correctly to your question by noting that PHP's for() syntax is
identical to C's for() syntax. Which it is.