Oliver Grätz wrote:
Here's the idea: When the tokenizer encounters the opening "?" of the
ternary, it DEACTIVATES the namespace operator until the end of the
ternary. This way, all old code will behave as before, nothing will be
broken. Of course, this absolutely requires the use of parentheses i
Hi folks!
I had some PM discussions about the (presumably premature) death of ":"
as the namespace symbol.
Most people liked this, some liked "::" (which will definetely NOT work)
and then the opinion was very split with a lot of people saying "OK, if
it has to be" to ":::". Some folks even resig
Cool. If that won't work, I'd rather have ::: over \, please ;)
- David
Am 28.11.2005 um 22:52 schrieb Oliver Grätz:
Hi folks!
I had some PM discussions about the (presumably premature) death of
":"
as the namespace symbol.
Most people liked this, some liked "::" (which will definetely N
