Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Marc Richards wrote:
Does it? There are other similar constructs that don't e.g. +=, $a ? $b : $c, .=;
These have roots in other languages and as such have a familiarity to them. ?: would be a brand new operator nobody has seen before and one that looks a lot like the ternary operator which everyone knows about.
We can always create a name for the construct (in the same way the ternary statement has a name) and properly document it. If it becomes useful and popular, people will start calling it that. Proper documentation doesn't require an actual function name.
I think that part of the reason that these things are so terse is because if would defeat the whole point to use a function name; The aim is to be concise.
No, the aim is not conciseness. That has never been PHP's goal. The aim is clarity.
I wasn't saying it was a PHP goal, I was it is the goal of certain constructs like += or .=
Marc
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
