On November 5, 2003 11:21 am, you wrote: > Well, like I said before, I am not sure this is a clear case of that. I'm > probably the biggest defender around of the no-magic rule, but [] does > imply something array-related to most people, so I think the magic part is > much smaller than in other proposals we have seen.
Right now [] could either be an array element or an offset. Now it can either be an array element or a string offset or an attempt to create a new array. Individually it may be fine, but I am certain we'll end up with bug reports of people trying to do $a = $b[1,2,3]; (copied from your resonse ;) ) and similar. Of course someone would then want to do $a[1,2,3] = [3,4,5]; and we're happily on our road to obfuscation.
I mean c'mon, is 5 characters that much of a problem and is absolute code clarity not worth those 5 characters? Character efficiency is done in Perl, where you can do things like ~= and @_, but that makes Perl code naturally obfuscated and I do not think that's a good way to go.
I don't believe in saving characters. You probably know that I tend to prefer looooooong meaningful names and not have all sorts of magic. I think in this case, it's not a matter of saving the typing as it looks much better and IMO is more intuitive.
Anyway, it's no biggy and if most people here think it shouldn't be added then that's fine with me.
Andi
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
