Brian Moon wrote:
> Is typing really the bottleneck for developers these days? I must suck
> then. I spend most of my day thinking or waiting on version control,
> testing and deploy applications, not typing.
+1. I don't think reducing key strokes should be a goal at all, the goal
should be readab
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>> >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
>> >>> hieroglyphic?
>> >> No. I don't see at all why we need
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
> >>> hieroglyphic?
> >> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
> >> needed an alternativ
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote:
>>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
>>> hieroglyphic?
>> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
>> needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
>> additions tha
From your blog post:
> All in all, I have tried to eliminate the syntax noise by
> reducing the key strokes in the the non-significant parts
> of the expression is typing time really the bottleneck for
> productivity
Is typing really the bottleneck for developers these days? I must suck
then. I
On 08/04/2011 05:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kin
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
additions that add *no* functionali
+1 - think everybody'd want their functions to be searchable and searching
for complex patterns like "(function)|(\|\=\>)" would really be a headache.
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
2011/8/4 Antony Dovgal
> On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM, Lazare Inepologlou
On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
... ( $x ) => $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |=
> ... ( $x ) => $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
> definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
> ... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |=> I have proposed) is a solution
that works because:
Oh, and I forgot one more thing:
As I read the internals, I noticed many times that PHP lexer is
somewhat limited in it's capabilities and sometimes the features are
dropped because of this issue.
It can be the case that the can be ambiguous and it will be just
impossible to add at this stage.
As
2011/8/4 Lazare Inepologlou :
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
> implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
> language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
> it here. Apologies for the long (and yet
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 21:18 +1000, Ryan McCue wrote:
> Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> > Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
> > works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
> > matter of taste :-)
>
> As much as I love the idea, I hav
Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
> works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
> matter of taste :-)
As much as I love the idea, I have to agree that using | doesn't really
make sense here and actual
Hi all :-),
On 04/08/11 09:23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
$add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clea
Hello,
>> $add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
> Not sure that it's really readable.
This is not the most trivial example. In my blog, there is a small
sub-section where I explain why this is more readable than an implementation
with the current syntax. See under "Readability" and "A more complic
Good morning Rasmus,
Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
matter of taste :-)
> it is only useful in one limited type of trivial closure usage
This trivial usage is actually the most c
Hello !
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Huge +1 for that.
Code using closures will be more read
Hi!
On 8/4/11 12:31 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
My opinion is that w
Hi,
I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Regards,
David
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
> $add = | $x |=> | $y : $x |=> $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clear that |=> is a new operator there due to the dangling |,
Hello everyone.
I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
it here. Apologies for the long (and yet incomplete) e-mail. I am
ready to write
22 matches
Mail list logo
