Joseph Crawford wrote:
i vote against ! and \ ! i would have to say <- or <: would be the one's i
would be most comfortable and less confused using.
Although I did originally like <-, it's impossible because it already
has meaning, as "less than the negative value of".
--
Jasper Bryant-Green
i vote against ! and \ ! i would have to say <- or <: would be the one's i
would be most comfortable and less confused using.
--
Joseph Crawford Jr.
Zend Certified Engineer
Codebowl Solutions, Inc.
1-802-671-2021
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
And for ...
System!Socket!Pair::open();
$x = $y?nsx!const:nxy!const; // $x = $y ? nsx!const : nxy!const;
[]s
André AE
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runt
Hello Oliver,
just once again for the record: :: is *not* working.
marcus
Monday, November 28, 2005, 2:52:50 PM, you wrote:
> Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
>> OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
>> OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandat
er 28, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Stanislav Malyshev
Cc: Oliver Grätz; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about
> OG>>what you would like. The ":"
> namespace1}{Date::myfunction();
> namespace2}{Date::Otherfunction();
>
For the same reason that ;; isn't doable (and worse actually).
echo "The Baz constant in the Bar class of the Foo namespace is:
{Foo}{Bar::Baz}, or is it? Don'tcha hate tokens with multiple meanings?";
--
PHP Internals - P
In every email is a signature at the end of the post:
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
If you use the correct email-ad
ew
On 11/28/05, Bart de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry if I say stupid stuff. My previous post actually was the first
> post I've ever made to a newsgroup! Please bare with me while I adjust
> to the etiquettes. :)
>
> Anyway. Somebody has probably already suggested this. But how abou
I'm sorry if I say stupid stuff. My previous post actually was the first
post I've ever made to a newsgroup! Please bare with me while I adjust
to the etiquettes. :)
Anyway. Somebody has probably already suggested this. But how about:
namespace1}{Date::myfunction();
namespace2}{Date::Otherfunc
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
OG>>be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then
> How about ;; then?
> name1;;name2::myfunction();
PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!
;; is already perfectly valid syntax:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ php5 -r 'define("name1",FALSE); class name2{function
myfunction(){ echo "foo\n"; }} name1;;name2::myfunction();'
foo
* Pre-existing operators are out of the question
Well, the problem is: '->' isn't used for classes. It's used for
objects! An object is an instance of a class. '~>' Would be more
appropriate if there would be such a thing as an instance of a
namespace. But not for accessing the namespace itself. (In my opinion)
This is why I think it should
It's used for shell execution stuff.
Perl did something similar and quickly regretted it
On 11/28/05, Marian Kostadinov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember
> just now if it was used somewhere.
>
> 2005/11/28, Ron Korving <[EMAIL PROTE
Is ` (back quote) suitable for namespace separator? I cannot remember
just now if it was used somewhere.
2005/11/28, Ron Korving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method()
> I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks pretty
> cool to me, cute even, like a l
wow, I like foo~>bar~>obj->method()
I love ':' best, but if that really can't be, I must say '~>' looks pretty
cool to me, cute even, like a little fishie ;)
anywaaay.. the best alternative to ':' i've seen so far, and i doubt it'll
cause problems with any existing operator.
- ron
""Ford, Mi
l Message-
From: Oliver Grätz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:40 AM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespace separator poll, update
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> yacc can look one token ahead, AFAIR.
This could help for "::" (rea
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> yacc can look one token ahead, AFAIR.
This could help for "::" (reading a name and seeing "Oh, one more ::, so
this is one more namespace"), but not for ":" (there the change of
operator precedence would still be needed). OK, now this would have to
be sorted out by s
OG>>Well, some people always keep throwing that already used symbols cannot
OG>>be used for other purposes. :: is used for resolving class scope. Well,
Well, namespace scope and class scope are close enough so that this mixing
up would be bearable (and regarding class resolution and namespace
re
On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > > BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about
> > > what you would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory
> > > whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very
> > > very bad.
>
> If my vote i
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb:
> OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
> OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
> OG>>be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
>
> If my vote is counted (not that I asked for i
OG>>BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
OG>>would like. The ":" for example would work if mandatory whitespace would
OG>>be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very very bad.
If my vote is counted (not that I asked for it :) then I vote against all
funky sy
Why would you have to do that. You only have to look at the
last :: / ::: sequence. It's not that hard.
- David
Am 28.11.2005 um 07:27 schrieb Andrei Zmievski:
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
Oh, I didn't know you could nest these things..
-1000 for whole namespace idea: PREFIX!
--Jani
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
On Nov 2
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
On Nov 27, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Oliver Grätz wrote:
Hi *!
I updated the table with the comments in the thread.
First of all: YES, these won't work as operator:
- "<-
Hi *!
I updated the table with the comments in the thread.
First of all: YES, these won't work as operator:
- "<-" means "less than the negative value of"
- ":" collides with the ternary
BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
would like. The ":" for example woul
25 matches
Mail list logo
