It's used for shell execution stuff. Perl did something similar and quickly regretted it
On 11/28/05, Marian Kostadinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember > just now if it was used somewhere. > > 2005/11/28, Ron Korving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method() > > I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks pretty > > cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;) > > > > anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'll > > cause problems with any existing operator. > > > > - ron > > > > > > > > ""Ford, Mike"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > > > > > BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about > > > > > what you would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory > > > > > whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very > > > > > very bad. > > > > > > If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against > > > all funky syntax, present and future. :: is only thing that is > > > obvious and somehow connected to the world of PHP as we know it now. > > > > > > Wow! I go home early on a Friday, and come back to a veritable php-dev > > flood in my Inbox! That must be the most active weekend since I started > > reading the list!! > > > > My point of view is similar to Stanislav's: any operator chosen should have > > some echo of existing syntax -- this rules out the original suggestion of \ > > and many of the suggested alternatives. I'm also completely against any > > solution that introduces new enforced whitespace, however unlikely the > > construct -- that just doesn't seem like "the PHP way". > > > > The two existing "class to member" operators are :: and ->, so I'd be > > looking at analogues of these. I'm not keen on :: itself performing > > double-duty here, and I hate ::: and most of the repeated-character > > suggestions (%%, .., **, etc.) -- especially as the single-character > > versions all have completely unrelated meanings. > > > > This leaves me looking for something not dissimilar to ->. It's a shame > > that => is already taken, as that would have done nicely. :> (or ::>), > > despite their smiley-ness, are actually quite clever suggestions, containing > > echoes of both :: and -> -- I'd be ok with either of these. Another > > possibility I haven't seen offered, and that has strong echoes of ->, is ~>. > > I can't see any conflicts here, it's sufficiently similar to be obviously > > related, but sufficiently different to be easily distinguished. > > > > What do people think? > > > > (Space for flame here...) > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Mike > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser, > > Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services, > > JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, > > Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211 > > > > > > To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to > > http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm > > > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
