On 04 February 2007 21:41, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 23:27 04-02-07, Pierre wrote: > > On 2/4/07, Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 20:14 04-02-07, Pierre wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 2/4/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I personally find array extremely clear, in recent weeks I > > > > > had to do A LOT of JavaScript work where the array syntax > > > > > works in a manner you suggest for PHP and its a massive pain. > > > > > It does not make for a very clear code. I think the syntax > > > > > you propose is extremely confusing and we should stick to > > > > > what we have right now. > > > > > > > > If someone does not like this new syntax, he can stick to > > > > array(). It is in no way an argument to refuse the new syntax > > > > addition. > > > > > > We never believed in that approach and we're not about to start > > > now :). > > > > What I mean is that the new syntax does not any drawback besides > > hurting a couple of people eyes (I'm pretty sure that most of our > > users will like it). The changes have no effect on how your scripts > > will run, not like the numerous changes we applied in 5.x until now. > > One of the key guidelines of the language definition process of PHP > was that we don't want multiple ways of doing the same thing, and we > don't buy the argument of 'why do you care? you can still do it the > other way'. Only if the new way is significantly better than the old > way of doing things (i.e. much faster / much simpler, etc.) we > consider it. I think it's been a very good guideline and helped us a > lot in keeping PHP relatively clean for a very long time.
I hadn't come across this as a stated PHP principle, and I actually don't buy it either in respect of PHP[*] or in general. It's often the case, as is becoming clear with this, that different people have widely divergent views about what is clear and easy to use/read and what isn't, and providing alternatives that suit both camps is to me a very positive move -- you'd end up pleasing far more people far more of the time than by sticking rigidly to the original option. [*] I enter into evidence here the alternative ":" block structure, which dates back further than I care to delve (but am extremely glad of); many function (or language construct) aliases, such as print/echo, exit/die; foreach in place of reset()/each(); 3 different ways (soon to be 4) to write a string literal; and even the inclusion of string slicing using (ironically) a [:] syntax on the PHP 6 feature list. > The new array syntax is arguably clearer (although some here > disagree). It's not MUCH clearer to the sense that it's a no > brainer, which makes things more complicated. In your opinion. Personally, I find the [] syntax so much clearer that I would rate it a no-brainer to include it. But, by the same token, there are also people on here who would rate it a no-brainer *not* to include it. Finally, I really don't see the argument that the [] syntax is non- obvious. If you're working with arrays at all, you have to know that [] is used to subscript out individual elements, so it seems to me abundantly clear that other uses of [] are most likely to be array- related and a quick step to the Arrays section of the manual would be in order. OK, as a mere enthusiastic user I've probably said more than I am entitled to, so I'll disappear for now...!! 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
