On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 00:17 Sara Golemon wrote:
> Do we expect this to work?
>
> $foo = new stdClass;
> $foo->bar = "Hello";
> echo "$foo?->bar world\n";
>
> Because at the moment it doesn't: https://3v4l.org/nLv3l
>
> -Sara
>
Ooof, people still interpolate strings that way?
Good riddance if it
Hi Ilija Tovilo,
> > I just noticed that while we support "$a->b", we do not support "$a?->b"
> > (the quotes are relevant -- I'm talking about interpolated strings here).
> > That is, in the latter case the "?->b" is just treated like a string part,
> > not like a property access.
>
> Just as I s
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:42 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> > > I just noticed that while we support "$a->b", we do not support
> "$a?->b" (the quotes are relevant -- I'm talking about interpolated strings
> here). That is, in the latter case the "?->b" is just treated like a string
> part, not like a p
Do we expect this to work?
$foo = new stdClass;
$foo->bar = "Hello";
echo "$foo?->bar world\n";
Because at the moment it doesn't: https://3v4l.org/nLv3l
-Sara
Hi again
> > I just noticed that while we support "$a->b", we do not support "$a?->b"
> > (the quotes are relevant -- I'm talking about interpolated strings here).
> > That is, in the latter case the "?->b" is just treated like a string part,
> > not like a property access.
> >
> > I don't thin
Hi internals,
For unrelated reasons detailed in
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5951#issuecomment-670969676 ,
I'm not planning on continuing work on this due to issues I found thinking
about the proposal.
I initially started work on this because the intended behavior seemed
underspecified.
Hi Nikita
>> > I started the vote on the nullsafe operator RFC.
>> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullsafe_operator
>
> I just noticed that while we support "$a->b", we do not support "$a?->b" (the
> quotes are relevant -- I'm talking about interpolated strings here). That is,
> in the latter case t
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:59 AM Ilija Tovilo
wrote:
> Hi internals
>
> > I started the vote on the nullsafe operator RFC.
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullsafe_operator
>
> I'm happy to announce that the RFC was accepted with 56 votes in favor
> and 2 votes against. Thanks to everybody who parti
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 2:22 AM tyson andre
wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> The match expression can be thought of as a much more concise/readable
> equivalent to chained ternary operators.
> I'm proposing allowing matches in constant expressions when all parts of
> the match are constant expressions.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM tyson andre
wrote:
> The match expression can be thought of as a much more concise/readable
> equivalent to chained ternary operators.
> I'm proposing allowing matches in constant expressions when all parts of
> the match are constant expressions.
>
>
That seems pre
On 08/08/2020 13:44, Andrea Faulds wrote:
For example, what if we allowed string prefixes to have special
user-defined meanings, like:
n"123_456" // expands to: gmp_init('123_456')
u"foo bar" // expands to: new UnicodeString("foo bar") (some class I
made up)
d"123.456" // expands to: new
Hi Andrea,
> > What are your thoughts on making `123_456_000_000_000_000_000_000n` a
> > shorthand for `gmp_init('12345600')` (or a call with
> > equivalent results)
> > (similar to existing backtick string syntax is a shorthand for
> > `shell_exec()`)
>
> We could do that, but
Hi Tyson,
tyson andre wrote:
What are your thoughts on making `123_456_000_000_000_000_000_000n` a shorthand
for `gmp_init('12345600')` (or a call with equivalent results)
(similar to existing backtick string syntax is a shorthand for `shell_exec()`)
We could do that, but mayb
>
>
> This is some new complexity, even if only a small amount right now.
> My question remains about how much more added complexity it will
> require later if we implement extensions like nested attributes.
>
What? Are you actually saying that 30 lines of code add "complexity"? I
think you should
14 matches
Mail list logo
