I for one cringe when I see list(), and I'd love to see [$a, $b] =
array(...) become an alternative to that. Can't say I care that much
about an alternative syntax for dealing with array creation, but I
wouldn't mind.
"[]" already suggests "array", and I guess existing developers will have
no
But I have to ask: what's the matter. A good programming language should
not force the developer to program as the language wants. A good
programming language should support the developer in writing code he
likes, the way he likes.
So, you are new to php internal huh? =)
Seriously, the langua
Mathias Bank wrote:
It don't think so: PHP is a good language, but writing code in PHP is
sometimes awful. This could be improved by an alternative syntax. This
could help new developers who are coming from another language. This
could make coding funnier for some developers.
Alternative synt
Andi Gutmans schrieb:
Hi,
I thought I may have brought this up a long time ago but couldn't find anything
in the archives.
For a long time already I've been thinking about possibly adding a new syntax
for array(...) which would be shorter. I'd suggest
[...]. While I am usually not in favor of
On Tue, February 6, 2007 8:17 am, LAUPRETRE François (P) wrote:
>> From: Richard Lynch
>>
>> How many newbies will be trying:
>> array[1, 2, 3];
>> and left scratching their heads when it doesn't work?
>
> Yes, even if I am in favor of the [] syntax, it is a good argument:
> 'array[ 1, 2, 3]' can
>
Actually, this one was prompted by seeing a bug fix or changelog about
requiring { } and : endif; to match up, rather than accepting
either/or in balance.
Synchronicity that I even saw that item, but there it is.
I would HOPE that they'd have to balance, but if they don't for the
long block synta
Now you're just grandstanding.
-Andrei
On Feb 5, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
More edge cases:
$foo = array(1, 2, 3];
$bar = [1, 2, 3);
Syntax error because it's unbalancedO
Or kosher, because the choice of start/end delimiters should be up to
the user?
Should it match whatever
That's because you wouldn't be using those words with a newbie, if
you are smart. You'd simply say "it works like list() here" and "it
works like array()" here.
-Andrei
On Feb 5, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:06 pm, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Feb 4, 20
> From: Richard Lynch
>
> How many newbies will be trying:
> array[1, 2, 3];
> and left scratching their heads when it doesn't work?
Yes, even if I am in favor of the [] syntax, it is a good argument: 'array[ 1,
2, 3]' can
become a very common error, and not especially among newbies!
Maybe I a
On Feb 6, 2007, at 0:46, Richard Lynch wrote:
and they don't even realize that the () doesn't mean what they think
it means, and it "just works" because it's a no-op.
() is not a no-op.
return ($a) vs. return $a could cause PHP to corrupt memory and crash :)
Edin
--
Edin Kadribasic, Emini
I would argue that list() (and [] when used like list()) should remain a
terminal expression. Yes it's possible to make it non-terminal, but I
don't like what the resulting syntax winds up looking like.
-Sara
Good question. If it's possible to make it behave this way, I don't see
why not. On
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:46 -0600, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
> On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:05 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
> >> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
> >> de-construct an array into individ
Richard Lynch wrote:
> More edge cases:
>
> $foo = array(1, 2, 3];
> $bar = [1, 2, 3);
>
> Syntax error because it's unbalancedO
>
> Or kosher, because the choice of start/end delimiters should
> be up to the user?
>
> Should it match whatever rule is in place for:
>
> if (...){
> endif;
ec
More edge cases:
$foo = array(1, 2, 3];
$bar = [1, 2, 3);
Syntax error because it's unbalancedO
Or kosher, because the choice of start/end delimiters should be up to
the user?
Should it match whatever rule is in place for:
if (...){
endif;
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:05 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
>> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
>> de-construct an array into individual variables?
>
> Yep. We also have an invisible magical oper
On Mon, February 5, 2007 12:06 pm, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>> E!
>>
>> So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
>> *sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
>> de-construct an array into indivi
Good question. If it's possible to make it behave this way, I don't see
why not. On the other hand, if you take list(), it can't be used in
RHS.
-Andrei
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Todd Ruth wrote:
Would this be legal?
function f() {
return [ 1, 2 ];
}
$x = [ $a, $b ] = f();
In the e
Would this be legal?
function f() {
return [ 1, 2 ];
}
$x = [ $a, $b ] = f();
In the end, would we have...?
$a = 1;
$b = 2;
$x = array(1,2);
I'm not trying to be positive or negative about the
syntax. I'm just "testing" somewhat edge cases.
- Todd
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 10:06 -0800, Andre
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
Yep. We also have an invisible magical operator (), which sometimes
means function definition, sometimes means expres
On Feb 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
E!
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
That's just disgusting, imho.
-1 !!!
The way I view [
On 05/02/07, LAUPRETRE François (P) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> - func('foo' => $foo, 'bar' => $bar, ...) equivalent to
> >> func(array('foo' => $foo, 'bar' => $bar, ...)
Argh! Reading such a line, I think of named parameters, not an ar
That would be very handy. As I code frequently JavaScript and ActionScript, I
will use this feature
with pleasure. +2 for me :D The array(), especially for more-than-1 dimensional
arrays is very
cumbersome.
Best Regards,
Ivailo Karamanolev
On Monday, February 5, 2007, 12:53:44 PM, LAUPRETRE Fra
> From: Christian Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What's also beautiful about [] IMHO is the symmetry of the syntax,
> list() and array() are asymmetrical which I always found inferior.
Agree. +1 for me, especially for this reason, even after reading Greg's
examples :) IMO, it is
more i
Christian Schneider wrote:
My personal summary of this thread is: We won't have syntactic sugar for
common things like arrays, named parameter emulation and the like ever
because it will be killed by the "we already have a way of doing this"
and the "you cannot look it up" argument. Shame, tha
Richard Lynch wrote:
So now we have an invisible operator with a magical symbol '[' which
*sometimes* means create an array, but *sometimes* means to
de-construct an array into individual variables?
The distinction you are making is from an implementation point of view.
From a language users p
Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought I may have brought this up a long time ago but couldn't find
> anything in the archives.
> For a long time already I've been thinking about possibly adding a new syntax
> for array(...) which would be shorter. I'd suggest
> [...]. While I am usually not in
On Sun, February 4, 2007 8:23 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
> Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> So what I'm thinking of is:
>> array(1, 2, 3) == [1, 2, 3]
>
> I like this syntax, more conscise but still clear (and well
> established
> in other languages by now).
>
> Two more thoughts (but please don't kill A
So what I'm thinking of is:
array(1, 2, 3) == [1, 2, 3]
array(1, 2, array("foo", "bar")) == [1, 2, ["foo", "bar"]]
array("key" => 1, "key2" => 2) == ["key" => 1, "key2" => 2]
An enthusiastic thumbs-sideways.
I'll probably use this at some point, but not for anything which needs
to be version a
Andi Gutmans wrote:
So what I'm thinking of is:
array(1, 2, 3) == [1, 2, 3]
I like this syntax, more conscise but still clear (and well established
in other languages by now).
Two more thoughts (but please don't kill Andi's proposal because of it,
rather dismiss my comments instead ;-)):
-
29 matches
Mail list logo
