Hello Oliver, just once again for the record: :: is *not* working.
marcus Monday, November 28, 2005, 2:52:50 PM, you wrote: > Stanislav Malyshev schrieb: >> OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you >> OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory whitespace would >> OG>>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. > Well, some people always keep throwing that already used symbols cannot > be used for other purposes. :: is used for resolving class scope. Well, > the tokenizer COULD be so smart as to look ahead but I still haven't > heard from any developer if the tokenizer is able to do that or if its > context only consists of "before the currently found symbol". And the of > course, multicontext symbols mean less performance (I guess). For the > proposed : and its conflict with the middle symbol of the ternary > operator the problem is somehow similar: If the tokenizer reads the ? > it's already clear that a ternary is "happening". > Examples: > $b=$a?c:d; > Currently this means "$b gets the value of constant c or d depending on > the value of $a". If : becomes the namespace operator and then this > symbol would ordinarily have a higher operator precedence and the > tokenizer would read "constant d in namespace c" and then not find the > middle : of the ternary hence throwing a parse error. This is obviously > very bad since such scripts might already exist. BUT if the tokenizer > would have a higher precedence for the middle ternary then this would > run as before. To use namespaces in the ternary one would the simply > force to put them in parentheses which is no big problem since such > cases might be EXTREMELY rare. This would work: > $b=$a?(c:d):(e:f); > but this would not: > $b=$a?c:d:e:f; > with an error of "; expected at the position of the second :" (if > ignoring namespaces there completely) or "; expected at the position of > the third;" (if namespaces kick in AFTER the middle ternary operator) or > something like that which would both be tolerable. The only question > that nobody answered until now: Is such a behaviour of the tokenizer > possible or do such contextual decisions not even happen until AFTER the > tokenizing process? > If it could be done this way then this would be the way to go since > everybody seems to like : and the only thing in the way is one extremely > rare case. > OLLi Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
