On Sunday 20 November 2005 23:18, George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Doesn't work to well with
>
> $$moo{1};
Didn't think of that :)
> or
>
> $moo = array( 1 => 'foo');
> $moo{1};
I actaully didn't even know you could do that :)
So.. ignore my regex, but not my comment about decent docmentation for
Ian P. Christian wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:27, Ian P. Christian wrote:
If this change included a simple sed command that could be applied to code
to fix 'legacy' code
Sorry, should have included this...
For example:
$ cat test
$ sed -e 's/$\([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*\){\(
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:27, Ian P. Christian wrote:
> If this change included a simple sed command that could be applied to code
> to fix 'legacy' code
Sorry, should have included this...
For example:
$ cat test
$ sed -e 's/$\([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*\){\([0-9]*\)}/substr($\1,\2,1)/g' test
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:21, Christian Schneider wrote:
> I second that as people on the list here are undecided about the removal
> of {} for strings. Keeping that warning creates even more confusion
> about a really minor issue (having two ways of accesing strings offsets).
Whilst I'm not r
Sascha Schumann wrote:
16 Nov 2005, PHP 5.1 Release Candidate 5
- Added an E_STRICT warning on the usage of {} for accessing of string
offsets.
(Ilia)
I suggest removing that warning immediately until the matter
is resolved.
I second that as people on the list here are undecided abou
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
The PHP 6 stuff is still up in the air. The original suggestion was to
carry through with the deprecation of [] which I strongly vetoed since
it would break everything. We can revisit whether we want to remove {}
in PHP 6. I didn't think people had such strong feelings
Roman Ivanov schrieb:
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>>Please think twice before breaking BC light-heartedly.
>
>
> Please brake BC completely, and rename everything, and reorder
> arguments, and replace array() with a(), and replace $this-> with
> something consise, and replace '->' with '.',
Christian Schneider wrote:
Please think twice before breaking BC light-heartedly.
Please brake BC completely, and rename everything, and reorder
arguments, and replace array() with a(), and replace $this-> with
something consise, and replace '->' with '.', and replace '.' with '~'.
*smiley*
On 2005-11-18, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 03:12, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 16:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> > > Andreas Korthaus wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Can someone tell me the reason fo
> I suggest removing that warning immediately until the matter
> is resolved.
+1 ( times the discount-for-rants-factor )
-mp
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
16 Nov 2005, PHP 5.1 Release Candidate 5
- Added an E_STRICT warning on the usage of {} for accessing of string
offsets.
(Ilia)
I suggest removing that warning immediately until the matter
is resolved.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe
> For the 13th time. {} is not going away in 5.1.
>From the NEWS file:
16 Nov 2005, PHP 5.1 Release Candidate 5
- Added an E_STRICT warning on the usage of {} for accessing of string
offsets.
(Ilia)
That is, code that has been tested with RC4 and that worked (not even a
notice on whatever err
Ford, Mike wrote on Friday, November 18, 2005 7:58 AM:
> On 17 November 2005 21:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> >
> > > Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
> >
> > Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
> > code doesn't r
Maybe you have spoken to the wrong people then. Since {} has
been advocated for quite some time as the Right Way to access
string offsets, basically all PHP books teach that syntax.
As such {} is used very frequently. There are vast amounts
of code with that syntax. Breaking
The PHP 6 stuff is still up in the air. The original suggestion was to
carry through with the deprecation of [] which I strongly vetoed since
it would break everything. We can revisit whether we want to remove {}
in PHP 6. I didn't think people had such strong feelings about it.
From my chec
Hey, you're still alive?
Alive and kicking.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> And it really should not be going away in PHP 6 either. I
> don't get why you are suggesting to expend so many resources
> as part of a migration effort while it is obvious that there
> are no advantages at all in dropping {}. It make
And it really should not be going away in PHP 6 either. I
don't get why you are suggesting to expend so many resources
as part of a migration effort while it is obvious that there
are no advantages at all in dropping {}. It makes no sense.
- Sascha
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Rasm
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
Even the attempt of trying to change or remove some language feature
like the {} thing IN A RC5 is unbelievably unprofessional.
For the 13th time. {} is not going away in 5.1.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http:
Anybody interested in my two cents? (I shouldn't have asked as I'm going
to tell you anyway.)
"You will break many more scripts by dropping [] for strings than the
other way around. Do you agree?" - Heck, this sounds as if you're doing
a "let's drop stuff for some technical reason no average PH
I hear a lot of opinions here on the curly braces issue, and while I don't
use them, they're not in the way. I'd say let's keep them in.
> > As far a code readability and obviousness goes, I doubt anybody would
> > guess their way to the $str{5} syntax. If you were new to
> > PHP and you
> > we
+1 for keeping {} sintax in PHP6.
It's not fair for all those people who endeavoured to write a good PHP
code and followed the recommendations for it.
And why should this feature be removed while in the mean time PHP
developers are desparately keeping some very very old stuff for BC
reasons?
This
Derick Rethans wrote:
Don't you think it's useful to allow a convention like {} for strings and []
for arrays, so you can be sure what $str{1} means without looking at any
context?
No.
Derick
ok, next stop: "Operator Overloading"? ;)
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer
On 17 November 2005 21:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Andreas Korthaus wrote:
>
> > Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
>
> Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about
> reading old
> code doesn't really hold. If you go and grep through all the public
> code out there
On 18 November 2005 11:48, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Andreas Korthaus wrote:
>
> > Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > > > That's the problem - also grep does not know if [] is used for
> > > > arrays or stings. That's the same for programmers, it's often
> > > > not easy to conclud
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > > That's the problem - also grep does not know if [] is used for arrays or
> > > stings. That's the same for programmers, it's often not easy to conclude
> > > from
> > > context - that's my point.
> >
> > grep won't, but
Derick Rethans wrote:
That's the problem - also grep does not know if [] is used for arrays or
stings. That's the same for programmers, it's often not easy to conclude from
context - that's my point.
grep won't, but php -l will.
That's true. But what about "reducing complexity"?
Don't you t
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 03:12, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 16:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > > Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
> > >
> > > Very few people converted to using {
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> > If you go and grep through all the public code out there, pretty much none
> > of it uses {} for character offsets.
>
> That's the problem - also grep does not know if [] is used for arrays or
> stings. That's the same for programmers, it's often n
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 16:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> >
> > > Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
> >
> > Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
>
> Ugh, so those of us that
Just a friendly note from my PHP user side:
We had 2 places where {} where used for accessing string.
Took me 10 seconds to remove those with the help of
the nice E_STRICT error. (filename, linenumber)
--Jani
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Andreas Korthaus w
Hi Andrei!
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
You will break many more scripts by dropping [] for strings than the
other way around. Do you agree?
Until tonight I was sure that only a few projects still use the []
syntax which is depreciated for 5 years.
But if some of you don't think so I'm probably wr
You will break many more scripts by dropping [] for strings than the
other way around. Do you agree?
-Andrei
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Andreas Korthaus wrote:
OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility
to have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
How do you know this? Have you conducted polls?
-Andrei
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Jevon Wright wrote:
Is there anything wrong with having a convention for character
access of strings? Most PHP programmers see {} as string access and
[] as array access - sure, they might be functionally
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
And you are willing to break just about every application out there for
this?
I didn't know how many applications use [] with strings. I only know a
lot of applications using {}. The point is not "breaking existing apps",
but destroy a sensable convention, which is us
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 19:05, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 18:33, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> >>> OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
> >>> have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for string
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 18:33, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
If I could decide I would drop {} for arrays and [] for strings, b
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 18:51, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 18:33, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> > > OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
> > > have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
> > > If I could decide
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 18:33, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> > OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
> > have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
> > If I could decide I would drop {} for arrays and [] for strings, but I
> > fear
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
> have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
> If I could decide I would drop {} for arrays and [] for strings, but I
> fear I will not be asked to decide... ;-)
You may think that {} an
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
OK, but by dropping {} for strings you also remove the possibility to
have a convention like "[] for arrays and {} for strings".
If I could decide I would drop {} for arrays and [] for strings, but I
fear I will not be asked to decide... ;-)
And you are willing to break
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
But you know without understanding of any context, that it's the 6th
character of the string "$str". When you see $var[5], it could be the
6th character of a string, or an element of an array... and what
about the value? You can't be sure that it's
From: Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] dropping curly braces
> Sent: 17 Nov '05 12:11
>
> Andreas Korthaus wrote:
> >> As far a code readability and obviousness goes, I doubt anybody would
> >> guess their way to the
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
As far a code readability and obviousness goes, I doubt anybody would
guess their way to the $str{5} syntax.
But you know without understanding of any context, that it's the 6th
character of the string "$str". When you see $var[5], it could be the
6th character of a st
Hi Rasmus!
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
code doesn't really hold.
I can't belive that most of the code today is based on <=PHP3 code. I'm
not talking about such "PHP3 based" code. I'm talking about code, you
wrote 1 year ago
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 16:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Andreas Korthaus wrote:
>
> > Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
>
> Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
Ugh, so those of us that did are going to have to comb back through our
code and rever
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
code doesn't really hold. If you go and grep through all the public
code out there, pretty much none of it uses {} for character offsets.
I'd like to cite Andi here:
"Regarding BC breakage. I'm not
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about reading old
code doesn't really hold. If you go and grep through all the public
code out there, pretty much none of it uses {} for character offsets.
And in
Hi!
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Once again, I encourage everyone to take the time to try out this RC and
test it against your code or simply run "make test".
Works fine for me, but I've a question about the dropped curly braces.
Has there been some public discussion about it recently? I'm sorry if
49 matches
Mail list logo
