RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

14 years ago by dukeofgaming — view source — reply

unread

+1

To be honest, ['a': 'b'] or ['a' => 'b'] is so much better than array('a'
=>
'b') for general use I don't even care which one is picked, as long as one
of them is picked.

-Dan

+1 to that too. Even when I've never liked that much "=>" and would love to
see ":" make an entrance instead .

I'm afraid that if ":" is associated with the JSON interop argument and the
later is discarded then ":" will be discarded too, much like what happened
with the echo shortcut ("<?=") and the short tags ("<?"). Perhaps the idea
of JSON interop could be taken to another RFC and get less noise and better
ideas as a separate topic.

Regards,

David

14 years ago by Etienne Kneuss — view source — reply

unread

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide "key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

+1

To be honest, ['a': 'b'] or ['a' => 'b'] is so much better than array('a'
=>
'b') for general use I don't even care which one is picked, as long as one
of them is picked.

-Dan

+1 to that too. Even when I've never liked that much "=>" and would love to
see ":" make an entrance instead .

I'm afraid that if ":" is associated with the JSON interop argument and the
later is discarded then ":" will be discarded too, much like what happened
with the echo shortcut ("<?=") and the short tags ("<?"). Perhaps the idea
of JSON interop could be taken to another RFC and get less noise and better
ideas as a separate topic.

Regards,

David

--
Etienne Kneuss
http://www.colder.ch

14 years ago by Adam Harvey — view source — reply

unread

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide "key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Agreed here: +1 for short array syntax using =>; -0 for short array
syntax using colons. PHP isn't JSON, and I'd rather be consistent with
previous PHP syntax, given the choice.

Adam

14 years ago by Ford — view source — reply

unread

-----Original Message-----
From: ekneuss@gmail.com [mailto:ekneuss@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Kneuss
Sent: 01 June 2011 01:57
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide
"key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Hear, hear and hear, hear to that!

['a': 'b'] just feels completely un-PHP-like, and I'd be totally
against it.

If the desire is to have a "native" JSON syntax so that you can eval()
imported JSON, then I'm completely anti that, too -- that's a case
where I'd far rather be explicit and use json_decode(). And since, no
matter how you slice it, you're never going to get a complete fit
between native PHP structures and JSON encoding, I don't believe you
should even try.

I just can't see the problem with saying: PHP arrays (and maybe
objects?) look like this, and if you want to import/export them
from/to a JSON representation, there are functions to do it like
this. This seems to be the perfectly sensible approach of other
languages I've used recently (although my perl is somewhat out-of-date,
and my python even more out-of-daterer and minimal at that!). Even
ECMAScript is going down the route of explicit conversion with
JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() in ECMAScript 5!

All in all, still +1 for [1, 2=>2, 'a'=>'b'], and -several million (for
style) for any syntax involving colons.

Cheers!

Mike

Mike Ford,
Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation,
Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus,
Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom
E: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

14 years ago by dukeofgaming — view source — reply

unread

After that argument, I think I'm against ":" now too. +1 to "=>"

Could "{ }" be implemented for objects too then?.

Regards,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: ekneuss@gmail.com [mailto:ekneuss@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Kneuss
Sent: 01 June 2011 01:57
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide
"key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Hear, hear and hear, hear to that!

['a': 'b'] just feels completely un-PHP-like, and I'd be totally
against it.

If the desire is to have a "native" JSON syntax so that you can eval()
imported JSON, then I'm completely anti that, too -- that's a case
where I'd far rather be explicit and use json_decode(). And since, no
matter how you slice it, you're never going to get a complete fit
between native PHP structures and JSON encoding, I don't believe you
should even try.

I just can't see the problem with saying: PHP arrays (and maybe
objects?) look like this, and if you want to import/export them
from/to a JSON representation, there are functions to do it like
this. This seems to be the perfectly sensible approach of other
languages I've used recently (although my perl is somewhat out-of-date,
and my python even more out-of-daterer and minimal at that!). Even
ECMAScript is going down the route of explicit conversion with
JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() in ECMAScript 5!

All in all, still +1 for [1, 2=>2, 'a'=>'b'], and -several million (for
style) for any syntax involving colons.

Cheers!

Mike

Mike Ford,
Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation,
Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus,
Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom
E: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

14 years ago by Rune Kaagaard — view source — reply

unread

Big +1 on the patch. The ":" although a better choice would be
asymmetric to how its done inside array().

After that argument, I think I'm against ":" now too. +1 to "=>"

Could "{ }" be implemented for objects too then?.

Regards,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: ekneuss@gmail.com [mailto:ekneuss@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Kneuss
Sent: 01 June 2011 01:57
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide
"key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Hear, hear and hear, hear to that!

['a': 'b'] just feels completely un-PHP-like, and I'd be totally
against it.

If the desire is to have a "native" JSON syntax so that you can eval()
imported JSON, then I'm completely anti that, too -- that's a case
where I'd far rather be explicit and use json_decode(). And since, no
matter how you slice it, you're never going to get a complete fit
between native PHP structures and JSON encoding, I don't believe you
should even try.

I just can't see the problem with saying: PHP arrays (and maybe
objects?) look like this, and if you want to import/export them
from/to a JSON representation, there are functions to do it like
this. This seems to be the perfectly sensible approach of other
languages I've used recently (although my perl is somewhat out-of-date,
and my python even more out-of-daterer and minimal at that!). Even
ECMAScript is going down the route of explicit conversion with
JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() in ECMAScript 5!

All in all, still +1 for [1, 2=>2, 'a'=>'b'], and -several million (for
style) for any syntax involving colons.

Cheers!

Mike
--
Mike Ford,
Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation,
Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus,
Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom
E: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

14 years ago by John Crenshaw — view source — reply

unread

Using an explicit json_decode is actually a huge problem. It isn't just hard to write encoded stuff into strings, it is a security issue because you have to encode the values that you are then encoding into JSON. For example:

json_decode('{a: "a", b: "b", foo: "'.$_POST['foo'].'"}'); // !!! Security problem !!! Value injection is possible with a properly formed 'foo' parameter in the post.

To avoid this, you have to do the following:
json_decode('{a: "a", b: "b", foo: '. json_encode($_POST['foo'].'}');

Compare that clunky monstrosity to:
{a: "a", b: "b", foo: $_POST['foo']};

Remember that this syntax is less about constants and more about binding values into some structure.

As a C++ programmer I whole heartedly agree with the confusion point, but as a PHP developer I don't. Basically every PHP developer is going to be familiar with JavaScript, because it is also a web language. Go to oDesk.com, and you can't find a developer looking for PHP work who doesn't know how to work with jQuery or similar. Browser fragmentation makes jQuery or something similar almost essential for modern web development, and JSON is used extensively in all of these frameworks. Any PHP developer worth a dime will know exactly what they are looking at.

I agree that [a: 'b'] would be totally wrong. This doesn't look like PHP OR JSON, and is likely to cause confusion. If [a=>$b] is the only syntax people can agree on, I can live with that, but IMO that syntax will actually create MORE confusion than just allowing pure JSON (opinion informed by trying to get new devs up to speed on a project that uses MongoDB.)

John Crenshaw
Priacta, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: dukeofgaming [mailto:dukeofgaming@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:51 AM
To: Ford, Mike
Cc: Etienne Kneuss; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

After that argument, I think I'm against ":" now too. +1 to "=>"

Could "{ }" be implemented for objects too then?.

Regards,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: ekneuss@gmail.com [mailto:ekneuss@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Kneuss
Sent: 01 June 2011 01:57
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

+1 for a short array syntax.

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide
"key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Hear, hear and hear, hear to that!

['a': 'b'] just feels completely un-PHP-like, and I'd be totally
against it.

If the desire is to have a "native" JSON syntax so that you can eval()
imported JSON, then I'm completely anti that, too -- that's a case
where I'd far rather be explicit and use json_decode(). And since, no
matter how you slice it, you're never going to get a complete fit
between native PHP structures and JSON encoding, I don't believe you
should even try.

I just can't see the problem with saying: PHP arrays (and maybe
objects?) look like this, and if you want to import/export them
from/to a JSON representation, there are functions to do it like
this. This seems to be the perfectly sensible approach of other
languages I've used recently (although my perl is somewhat out-of-date,
and my python even more out-of-daterer and minimal at that!). Even
ECMAScript is going down the route of explicit conversion with
JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() in ECMAScript 5!

All in all, still +1 for [1, 2=>2, 'a'=>'b'], and -several million (for
style) for any syntax involving colons.

Cheers!

Mike

Mike Ford,
Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation,
Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus,
Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom
E: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

14 years ago by Derick Rethans — view source — reply

unread

+1 for a short array syntax.

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide "key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.

Yes, definitely "=>" vs. ":" in any case.

cheers,
Derick

--
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

14 years ago by Sean Coates — view source — reply

unread

This discussion seems to lack real-world examples…

Derick wrote:

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will ever be (-:

…

Gustavo wrote:

$a[array()];

is much more clear than

$a[[]]

Anyone who considers themselves skilled enough to participate in a language-forming discussion like this one should also have the prerequisite ability to determine that using an [empty] array as an array key is a horrible idea, and they deserve whatever weirdness ensues. IMO.

14 years ago by Ilia Alshanetsky — view source — reply

unread

This discussion seems to lack real-world examples…

Derick wrote:

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will ever be (-:

Using JSON syntax would only "maybe" make it more readable, and then
only because you would probably not format it on so many lines ;-)

14 years ago by Philip Olson — view source — reply

unread

This discussion seems to lack real-world examples…

Derick wrote:

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will ever be (-:

Using JSON syntax would only "maybe" make it more readable, and then
only because you would probably not format it on so many lines ;-)

Maybe that could be a contest. Who can make this the prettiest, using either a proposed or current syntax. :)

Regards,
Philip

14 years ago by Justin Carmony — view source — reply

unread

In all seriousness, there is a vast majority of PHP developers who are not represented on this list. I was surprised to see someone mentioning for calling for another vote so soon after this discussion came up. Perhaps instead of debating on readability and usefulness, we actually do some research with major PHP users to get their opinions? I'm not saying we should have every PHP user in the world vote, but there are talented PHP developers who are not apart of the core that have valid and insightful views and opinions.

So what I would first propose is we finalize the RFC because right now it is has two options, and doesn't deal with objects. I think everyone is starting to agree "=>" is much more uniform than ":", so lets drop the ":" from the RFC.

Then, lets request some feedback from reputable PHP developers, like authors of popular frameworks and PHP solutions. This way we can get some real input from people who are not on the internals email list. This can help those who make the decision on whether or not to accept the RFC aware not only of their own personal opinion and preferences, but the opinions and preferences of the PHP community as a whole.

I know I'm newer to the list, and don't want to step on any toes, but I think the RFC process could really benefit from getting this type of feedback.

Justin Carmony

This discussion seems to lack real-world examples…

Derick wrote:

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will ever be (-:

Using JSON syntax would only "maybe" make it more readable, and then
only because you would probably not format it on so many lines ;-)

Maybe that could be a contest. Who can make this the prettiest, using either a proposed or current syntax. :)

Regards,
Philip

14 years ago by Rasmus — view source — reply

unread

In all seriousness, there is a vast majority of PHP developers who are not represented on this list. I was surprised to see someone mentioning for calling for another vote so soon after this discussion came up. Perhaps instead of debating on readability and usefulness, we actually do some research with major PHP users to get their opinions? I'm not saying we should have every PHP user in the world vote, but there are talented PHP developers who are not apart of the core that have valid and insightful views and opinions.

So what I would first propose is we finalize the RFC because right now it is has two options, and doesn't deal with objects. I think everyone is starting to agree "=>" is much more uniform than ":", so lets drop the ":" from the RFC.

Then, lets request some feedback from reputable PHP developers, like authors of popular frameworks and PHP solutions. This way we can get some real input from people who are not on the internals email list. This can help those who make the decision on whether or not to accept the RFC aware not only of their own personal opinion and preferences, but the opinions and preferences of the PHP community as a whole.

I know I'm newer to the list, and don't want to step on any toes, but I think the RFC process could really benefit from getting this type of feedback.

I think it is well understood that PHP internals discussion happens on
this internals mailing list. It is not a restricted list in any way.
Anybody is able to participate here if they want their voice heard.

-Rasmus

14 years ago by Matt Wilson — view source — reply

unread

Would it be possible to have a vote on the various options being proposed here?

I think JSON syntax is definitely more concise and easier to type, as well as more convenient -- but I don't think it makes sense for PHP without changing how arrays work (I'm all for that, but that's a different discussion)

So for me, I'm -1 on a fudged JSON syntax with key: value syntax, even though I prefer that syntax over =>

But I'm => on being able to simply drop 'array' from array delcarations.

I have a third option that I'm sure no one but me would like, what if we had some way to designate an item as an object, instead of an associative array? This could be handled either with : instead of => or {} instead of (). {} instead of () seems to make more sense.

('arraykey' => {'property': 'value'})

Mimicking JSON just seems pointless if we can't actually provide any benefit to doing so, since we'd still either have to differentiate between object/array and load via eval() (-) or json_decode() (+)

This RFC just seems premature, or at least doesn't offer enough voting options.

In all seriousness, there is a vast majority of PHP developers who are not represented on this list. I was surprised to see someone mentioning for calling for another vote so soon after this discussion came up. Perhaps instead of debating on readability and usefulness, we actually do some research with major PHP users to get their opinions? I'm not saying we should have every PHP user in the world vote, but there are talented PHP developers who are not apart of the core that have valid and insightful views and opinions.

So what I would first propose is we finalize the RFC because right now it is has two options, and doesn't deal with objects. I think everyone is starting to agree "=>" is much more uniform than ":", so lets drop the ":" from the RFC.

Then, lets request some feedback from reputable PHP developers, like authors of popular frameworks and PHP solutions. This way we can get some real input from people who are not on the internals email list. This can help those who make the decision on whether or not to accept the RFC aware not only of their own personal opinion and preferences, but the opinions and preferences of the PHP community as a whole.

I know I'm newer to the list, and don't want to step on any toes, but I think the RFC process could really benefit from getting this type of feedback.

I think it is well understood that PHP internals discussion happens on
this internals mailing list. It is not a restricted list in any way.
Anybody is able to participate here if they want their voice heard.

-Rasmus

14 years ago by Herman Radtke — view source — reply

unread

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will ever be (-:

Using JSON syntax would only "maybe" make it more readable, and then
only because you would probably not format it on so many lines ;-)

For gits and shiggles I converted it to short array syntax. I
structure my arrays much like Sean does and I was of the opinion that
a shorter syntax would not improve the readability much. I have to
admit I do like the way the short syntax with the : separator looks,
though the => separator is not bad on the eyes either.

Converted snippets:
Using => separator:
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/8c653602dee96b87f566a29b78aa4daa.html
Using : (JSON) separator:
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/b117894e85b6f980b8390bc2828ca227.html

--
Herman Radtke
hermanradtke@gmail.com | http://hermanradtke.com

14 years ago by Benjamin Eberlei — view source — reply

unread

This discussion seems to lack real-world examples…

Derick wrote:

I'm still -1 on it. It makes absolutely unreadable code (yes, also
in
JavaScript with f.e. MongoDB).

Here's an actual snippet from my production code (which interfaces
with ElasticSearch):
http://paste.roguecoders.com/p/0747f2363c228a09e0ddd6f8ec52f2e8.html

If you consider this readable, you're fare more literate than I will
ever be (-:

Imho, this example just lacks a good OO abstraction (Query Builder)
that has a toMongoQueryArray() method.

…

Gustavo wrote:

$a[array()];

is much more clear than

$a[[]]

Anyone who considers themselves skilled enough to participate in a
language-forming discussion like this one should also have the
prerequisite ability to determine that using an [empty] array as an
array key is a horrible idea, and they deserve whatever weirdness
ensues. IMO.

S

14 years ago by Gwynne Raskind — view source — reply

unread

But only if you keep it consistent, PHP has always been using => for
key/val association, I don't see any reason to suddenly provide "key":
"val", unless what you want is to confuse people.
Yes, definitely "=>" vs. ":" in any case.

+1 to this.

-- Gwynne

14 years ago by Rasmus — view source — reply

unread

I'm afraid that if ":" is associated with the JSON interop argument and the
later is discarded then ":" will be discarded too, much like what happened
with the echo shortcut ("<?=") and the short tags ("<?"). Perhaps the idea
of JSON interop could be taken to another RFC and get less noise and better
ideas as a separate topic.

<?= has been decoupled from short tags in 5.4 and is always available.

-Rasmus

14 years ago by dukeofgaming — view source — reply

unread

I'm afraid that if ":" is associated with the JSON interop argument and
the
later is discarded then ":" will be discarded too, much like what
happened
with the echo shortcut ("<?=") and the short tags ("<?"). Perhaps the
idea
of JSON interop could be taken to another RFC and get less noise and
better
ideas as a separate topic.

<?= has been decoupled from short tags in 5.4 and is always available.

-Rasmus

Yep, I know, and thank you very much for that (I did see your commit a
couple of hours after you posted it). I think there was a lot of confusion
and fear (myself included) when "<?" were deprecated, e.g. the Kohana
project used to have them and recommend them too, but they removed the
practice later and stopped recommending them.

Anyhow, I think ":" vs "=>" is the only thing left to decide on this
proposal. I was thinking that if ":" was to be introduced, perhaps
"array('a':'A',...)" should also be added for consistency, and that is extra
work. In my opinion adopting ":" would be nice, but it would also be noise
for the developer community, perhaps good noise but noise nonetheless.

The healthy thing to do here IMHO, would be putting introduction of ":" as a
separate RFC, perhaps part of a JSON interoperability RFC, but as Adam just
replied, PHP is not JSON and "=>" is a very fundamental thing to change, so
I have mixed feelings about this.

Also, can we agree on the topic of introducing "{ }" for objects to the
proposal?.

Best regards,

David