On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > > > This is a great illustration of different visions we have here. On > > one hand, we have practical, immediate feature that covers a clear > > use case and does not add any constructs or complexity to the core > > language and services immediate need, covering several lines of > > frequently encountered boilerplate code with one function. > > > > On the other hand, we have a possibility to have in the future a > > fashionable syntax, which is a bit better, more concise and "cool > > looking" expression for what foreach already can do. > > > > Stas, I think you are misrepresenting this a bit. It's not about > adding something "cool looking", it's about adding a feature that > solves *this and many more* problems in a consistent way. A way that > does *not* require to add a new function for every single array > manipulation. > > I know that not everyone agrees with that philosophy, but I personally > don't like to add new features that can be easily covered by more > general solutions, or features that just represent a hack because the > more general solution isn't implemented yet.
By more general you mean extra special new OO constructs? Sorry, but PHP should also be useable by non-CS majors. And so what we have 76 (soon 77!) array functions? > This is also the reason why I don't particularly like your argument > skipping proposal, because it's just a hack around the lack of named > arguments. Argument skipping is a language construct, this just adds a new function to the 2000 we already have. Quite a different matter. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
