Hi!
So here's my offer: if two core committers, or even just one, were
willing to champion this feature, I will take full responsibility for
"if" is redundant here - at least three core committers are already for
this feature. In any case, not rehashing all the past arguments and
their vali
I don't really consider myself worthy to preach to the Powers That Be,
but this is an issue about which I happen to feel strongly, and y'all
asked for some user-land opinions, so here goes. To further clarify
(and disclaim), I have never spoken up on this list before, I haven't
until recen
Hi, I've been reading internals for a while and after reading some
messages in this specific topic (Short syntax for array literals) I
decided to give some userland input here as it seems it's somewhat a
rare ocurrence in this list.
If I had to guess, I'd say most people don't consider themsel
Lars Strojny wrote:
>> Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters".
>
> They are heard. The issue is, as always in programming, you want to do
[...]
> maintainability, safety and security. I'm not saying the core
> contributors are always right, but there being core contributo
Hi!
I'm probably in the 'nay' camp, but purely because I can't see any
reason to take several years of existing code base and changing it. So
I wish I had any idea about how we got to changing existing code base.
No one ever suggested removing array() syntax.
syntax but rather just adding
Hi Chris,
Am Samstag, den 31.05.2008, 08:42 -0700 schrieb Chris Stockton:
> Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters".
They are heard. The issue is, as always in programming, you want to do
an informed decision. That's why I don't like architecture astronauts,
as they aren't r
Hello Lars,
for an ambitious userland developer it is not very easy to follow this
list and even join the
discussions (though I think it's worth).
Maybe there should be a point where some discussions from internals
should be taken to lang - better
not this one, I don't want to fuel the fire a
Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters".
-Chris
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Lars Strojny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch:
> [...]
> > Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represent
I'm +1 btw
/Hans Åhlin
I'm +1 btw
/Hans Åhlin
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi I'm a new php programmer and i think that the first thing to think
about is code readability and clarity.
I think that this discussion looks like a grandfathers argument
against new music and fashion, but every one (including grandpa)
knows its vital for the communities evolution.
Why keep a wo
Hi Sebastian,
Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch:
[...]
> Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the
> internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice?
Well, they can subscribe, can't they?
http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php
cu,
Philip Olson schrieb:
I also re-added the "Discusssion on the Web" section, because it
reflects what the user base is thinking on this topic.
This section of random blogs is unnecessary especially considering how
open the lists are to the world. I consider this section to be a bad "If
I want
I also re-added the "Discusssion on the Web" section, because it
reflects what the user base is thinking on this topic.
This section of random blogs is unnecessary especially considering how
open the lists are to the world. I consider this section to be a bad
"If I want my voice really hear
Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 13:32 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I
am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a
success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to
refer to a
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about Rasmus and Andi? ;) They are both "aye"s.
And Andrei (heh and me! :-D
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vis
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
So back to the original topic: In a 50:50 scenario I'd certainly give
more weight to people I know for contributing for a long time than
How about Rasmus and Andi? ;) They are both "aye"s.
I'm probably in the 'nay' camp, but purely because I can't see any reason to
Hi!
most people there's not much reason to maintain stuff they don't need
all they get is a bigger ego. If a "user" wants a feature he should step
up
In this particular case it doesn't work - one can step up as much as one
wants but if this feature is not accepted then no amount of stepping
You don't really have any vote anyway, you lost that when you tricked me for
doing your work for you and took the money and run away..
--Jani
Pierre Joye kirjoitti:
hi Derick,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd have less issues with adding [] as
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 13:32 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I
> am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a
> success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to
> refer to as PHP's actual user
Hello,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote:
> > It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> > syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 09:19 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is
> forbidden to use.
... which doesn't help people having to read code without being able to
influence the coding style...
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime De
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote:
> It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in parallel):
>
> $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
>
> $b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2];
ok, in a previou
I think a public voting system is not a good thing (though the idea
appealed me in the first place) - but I was convinced that it would lead
to vote without discussion.
For "listening to the user base" I originally had a headline "Discussion
on the Web" were I refered to some blog posts coveri
It's a big +1 for me and this sums it up
> PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical
> target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and
> the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt
> the language appropriately. What is
Derick Rethans wrote:
From what I can see there is
not a major majority in favor - in this case I'd even say that 50%
should not be enough for this to get in.
I know blog comments are not completely scientific and perhaps not an
accurate representation of the whole commnity. But the comme
Hello Sebastian,
-1, right now we have [] only in read context. And an array will be
constructed with 'array' keyword. Loosing this distinction is a bit of a
draw back for me.
marcus
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 12:58:24 AM, you wrote:
> fyi - i added a RFC
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxfor
hi Derick,
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was
> something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road
> now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array().
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Pierre Joye wrote:
> What's the idea behind repeating the same (good or bad) argument
> endlessly with more or less prose around them? Thanks for voting at
> the end anyway.
It's an important thing that people are be able to show their
choices with proper reasoning. I can on
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
> > for being so easy to learn and use.
> >
> > I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
> > "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't b
Mike wrote:
In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.
I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching
Hi!
So you can present PHP users as senseless robots that are unable to
understand array() syntax and I can't point to the extreme UNreadability
Nobody ever did that.
The next step would be to call me a blasphemer and pronounce anathema
upon me because I refuse to vote for a feature that ha
Hello,
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come up
> with my own litmus test for new features.
>
> 1) is the syntax missing from the language?
> 2) if so, does the syntax add missing functiona
hi,
What's the idea behind repeating the same (good or bad) argument
endlessly with more or less prose around them? Thanks for voting at
the end anyway.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come
I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come up
with my own litmus test for new features.
1) is the syntax missing from the language?
2) if so, does the syntax add missing functionality or significant
maintenance benefit?
2) if not, does the new syntax add significant value?
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Moon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 28 May 2008 16:21
> To: Antony Dovgal
> Cc: Sebastian Deutsch; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
>
> Antony Dovgal wrote:
Mike wrote:
In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.
I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching
Hello,
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Exactly. Open this can of worms and soon PHP is something else than easy to
> learn.. someone already mentioned that {} thing for objects.. :)
>
> Sidenote: There are more important things to solve in PHP 5.3 (and
Exactly. Open this can of worms and soon PHP is something else than easy
to learn.. someone already mentioned that {} thing for objects.. :)
Sidenote: There are more important things to solve in PHP 5.3 (and
especially HEAD) than adding this little syntax sugar..
--Jani
Mike wrote:
In my o
In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.
I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "
+1 for: ['foo' => 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
'bar']
Here is why,
Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in php
then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
Array('foo' => 'bar'), verse ['foo' => 'bar'], most people will
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Sebastian Deutsch; PHP Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
>
> Please
> -Original Message-
> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:44 PM
> To: Antony Dovgal
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
>
> At a certain level everything i
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 28.05.2008 02:58, Sebastian Deutsch wrote:
fyi - i added a RFC
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
please add your votes
You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your
products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP
2008/5/28 Stan Vassilev | FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> var array = new Array(); -- same as -- var array = [];
> var object = new Object(); -- same as -- var object = {};
>
> And when people have both of those, guess which one they use in more than
> 90% of the cases.
>
> Regards,
> Stan Vassilev
I'v
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard
What's hard in that? Only logged in users vote, one login - one vote. :)
Verifying that one user hasn't created hundreds of accounts for voting
purposes? No problem if voting is linked to a php.net
On 28 May 2008 08:20, Derick Rethans advised:
> Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is
> forbidden to use.
As is, of course, your right -- just as it would be mine to immediately
add to my coding standards that it is compulsory!
+1
(my irrelevant personal opinion
2008/5/27, Sebastian Deutsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> fyi - i added a RFC
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
>
> please add your votes
>
I'm -1.
> cheers
>
> Sebastian
>
> Sebastian Deutsch schrieb:
>
>
> > dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
> > would it make sens
-1.
(the syntax with colons is appalling, and the other one doesn't look
any more readable - and is not javascript-ish either, since JS arrays
can only have numeric keys. I'd welcome the syntax without any chance
of specifying keys, but then, that'd be a really half-arsed solution)
Am
Hello again,
renderSomething(array('exclude' => array('a', 'b', 'c'), 'include' =>
array('d', 'e', 'f')));
vs:
renderSomething(['exclude' => ['a', 'b', 'c'], 'include' => ['d', 'e',
'f']]);
Your version is more readable but try this one:
renderSomething(
array(
'exclude' => a
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The next step would be to call me a blasphemer and pronounce anathema upon
> me because I refuse to vote for a feature that have already been voted
> against.
> But why not? Go on, vote forever until it's in.
>
>From th
Hi,
No one said it's a matter of life and death. But is it only a matter of life
and death improvements that should be considered for PHP?
The typical use case that benefits most from this is when a function accepts
arrays as a means of structured/named/nested options, something I use a lot.
Hello,
As I always will say -1 to this.
But I have a question, people here talk that this is very very useful in
some cases. Can you please show others such cases so we can get your point?
I really want to know this super hyper cases, this syntax is mega useful.
Regards, Dimitar
-1
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Wednesday 28 May 2008 09:11:50 Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Today's web developer is
> > typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either
> > Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to all
> > those folks.
>
On 28.05.2008 12:03, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Want me to find some more 50 people to vote against it?
If you find 50 active commiters against it
Ah, you mean active commiters..
Then you probably will want to know that the actual number is 6:5
if you count only active contributors and
Hi!
Want me to find some more 50 people to vote against it?
If you find 50 active commiters against it - I think it'd make sense to
hear what they have to say. Ask them why they didn't say anything by now.
We're having a conference these days, I believe I can find even more
people just to
On 28.05.2008 11:34, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so
handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it
either.
If they don't do it and we do, people come from them to us and not the
reverse.
Yeah, from
Hi!
I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so
handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it
either.
If they don't do it and we do, people come from them to us and not the
reverse. The reason is to make life easier for people. And I think
cu
On 28.05.2008 11:24, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
know PHP, but have a certain experience with *script languages, i.e. you're
going to do a favor for 1% and confuse the remaining 99%.
percentage is way different. such "short array syntax" is a common
ground for a lot of modern dynamic languages.
On 5/28/08, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some variety
> of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is
> second nature to all those folks.
> >
>
>
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some
> > variety of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this
> > array syntax is second nature to all those folks.
>
> I don't r
>fyi - i added a RFC
>
>http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
>
>please add your votes
>
>cheers
>
>Sebastian
I'm +1.
- Hans Å
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Today's web developer is
typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either
Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to all
those folks.
I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>>>
>>> please add your votes
>>
>> I'm +1.
Same here, still +1.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To un
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 28.05.2008 10:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in
your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required
PHP version to the latest one, right?
That makes it even more useless.
That's great
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti:
> > > please add your votes
> >
> > I'm +1.
> >
> > BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
>
> For the record: I'm -1. array() is enough.
> Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting
On 28.05.2008 10:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your
products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP
version to the latest one, right?
That makes it even more useless.
That's great argument. So nice to k
Hi!
You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your
products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP
version to the latest one, right?
That makes it even more useless.
That's great argument. So nice to know everything we do for 5.3 and 6 is
completel
On 28.05.2008 02:58, Sebastian Deutsch wrote:
fyi - i added a RFC
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
please add your votes
You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products
for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest
Hi!
Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard
What's hard in that? Only logged in users vote, one login - one vote. :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Run
On 27 May 2008, at 19:44, Greg Beaver wrote:
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
please add your votes
I'm +1.
BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard
I vote we don't talk about voting methodology in this thread.
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
please add your votes
I'm +1.
BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard
:)
Greg
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/u
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
please add your votes
I'm +1.
BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
I don't think it's hard:
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/plugin:poll
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/plugin:userpoll
Sebastian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
I'm +1.
-Andrei
Sebastian Deutsch wrote:
fyi - i added a RFC
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
please add your votes
cheers
Sebastian
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
please add your votes
I'm +1.
I'm ok with it as well. Like I said over a year ago (*), it is a syntax
very familiar to web developers and it feels natural to most people.
(*) http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=117060700805108&w=2
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP
Hi!
Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting, isn't there
enough spam already?
What do you mean "no more voting"?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Devel
Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti:
please add your votes
I'm +1.
BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
For the record: I'm -1. array() is enough.
Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting, isn't there enough
spam already?
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - P
please add your votes
I'm +1.
BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, v
fyi - i added a RFC
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
please add your votes
cheers
Sebastian
Sebastian Deutsch schrieb:
dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
would it make sense to write an RFC?
cheers
Sebastian
Stan Vassilev | FM schrieb:
Hi,
I hear this often b
dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
would it make sense to write an RFC?
cheers
Sebastian
Stan Vassilev | FM schrieb:
Hi,
I hear this often by other developers and I tend to agree with them, that
arrays are used often, and often nested, so that having a long syntax for array
81 matches
Mail list logo
