I hope this is a joke.
Lets try not to reinvent Perl.
Thanks. Dmitry.
From: Nikita Popov
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 20:50
To: PHP internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Add spaceship assignment operator
Hi internals!
For consistency, we should add a
Hi all,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> Hi internals!
>>
>> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>>
>> $a <=>= $b;
>> // same as
>> $a = ($a <=> $b);
>
> I miserably fail to ima
Hi Nikita,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>
> $a <=>= $b;
> // same as
> $a = ($a <=> $b);
I miserably fail to imagine any use case for this.
> Additionally, we should add an i
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:16:50PM +0100, Midori Kocak wrote:
> actually it could be proposed to C in 1970 in a same manner for += operator
> by saying +== and +=== and also +. But hence Dennis Ritchie is dead and
> he accepted += as a founding father, we have no chance to ask him. Can we ask
actually it could be proposed to C in 1970 in a same manner for += operator by
saying +== and +=== and also +. But hence Dennis Ritchie is dead and he
accepted += as a founding father, we have no chance to ask him. Can we ask
maybe to Bjarne Stroustrup as being one of another founding father
On 24 Mar 2016 19:43, "Mutlu Kocak" wrote:
>
> he is trolling :)
>
I wouldn't dismiss this idea straight off. I can see a lot of practical
uses for chaining assignment operators, like:
$a !==<=> $b;
Expanded from:
$a = $a !== (($a <=> $b) === $b);
Which is something I often do in my produ
he is trolling :)
On Thursday, 24 March 2016, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sara Golemon > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Colin O'Dell >
> > wrote:
> > > Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
> > >
> > I think you means !===, which is "not-ident
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Colin O'Dell
> wrote:
> > Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
> >
> I think you means !===, which is "not-identical assignment" (!== =)
>
> ! is just *CRAZY TALK*
>
We shouldn't dismiss such t
You're right! Good call :)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Colin O'Dell
> wrote:
> > Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
> >
> I think you means !===, which is "not-identical assignment" (!== =)
>
> ! is just *CRAZY TALK*
>
>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 06:50:17PM +, Colin O'Dell wrote:
> Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
That would be: !=== (one less '=')
There should also be: === and !== which are the compare-with-type-juggling and
assign operators.
So you have assignment operators: !=== === !==
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Colin O'Dell wrote:
> Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
>
I think you means !===, which is "not-identical assignment" (!== =)
! is just *CRAZY TALK*
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www
Would your proposal also allow ! to work?
Colin
Hi Nikita,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>
> $a <=>= $b;
> // same as
> $a = ($a <=> $b);
>
I'm not sure I see a use case for this, when do you compare 2 values and
replace on
Morning Nikita,
Apologies for my inconsistent use of language ... I meant to say
shortened by one week.
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Nikita,
>
> Thanks for all your hard work.
>
> Since consistency is one of our main focuses, I move that
Morning Nikita,
Thanks for all your hard work.
Since consistency is one of our main focuses, I move that the
discussion period for this extremely important work is moved forward by one
week.
All in favour, say I.
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
>
+1
On Thursday, 24 March 2016, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>
> $a <=>= $b;
> // same as
> $a = ($a <=> $b);
>
> Additionally, we should add an is-identical assignment operator:
>
> $a $b;
> // sa
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>>$a $b;
>>// same as
>>$a = ($a === $b);
>>
> I see a problem with that … It’d be impossible to make it consistent with
> is-equal comparison…
>
> === is already is-identical comparison. So, no symbol for the is-equal
> assig
> Am 24.3.2016 um 18:50 schrieb Nikita Popov :
>
> Hi internals!
>
> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>
>$a <=>= $b;
>// same as
>$a = ($a <=> $b);
>
> Additionally, we should add an is-identical assignment operator:
>
>$a $b;
>// same a
Hi!
>
> For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
>
> $a <=>= $b;
Or maybe we shouldn't? Not only it is quite ugly, I am struggling to
imagine a use case in which one would need such a construct, and I would
recommend rewriting any code that uses such construct.
> Add
Hi internals!
For consistency, we should add a spaceship assignment operator:
$a <=>= $b;
// same as
$a = ($a <=> $b);
Additionally, we should add an is-identical assignment operator:
$a $b;
// same as
$a = ($a === $b);
Thank you for taking this proposal under cons
20 matches
Mail list logo
