This is getting kind of fun to read since we have unicode, perhaps we
should use one of those characters ;) - I'm sure I can find a chinese
character that means namespace for it ;)
define('foo',1);define('bar',2);var_dump(foo<-bar);
personally I would prefer ":" if it is at all feasible,
(changing the parser to enforce whitespace on a ? b : c with a compile
error would be a perfectly acceptable penalty. - It pales into
insignficance compared to the clone() issue that has to be dealt with in
upgrading PHP4->PHP5 ;)
Regards
Alan
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:50 -0500, Robert Deaton wrote:
> On 11/26/05, David Zülke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we rule out :::, it should be <- instead.
>
> I'd hate to see it be <-, looks too much like ->.
> Foo<-bar<-Baz::getTest()->foo();
>
> but I agree that ::: should be ruled out all together, its too similar to ::.
>
> I'd almost rather have %% over <-, and even that looks kinda messy.
>
> I think if I had to, I'd pick :>, although there still isn't any that
> stands out to me as "Hey, this is definately a good choice"
>
> --
> --Robert Deaton
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
