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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
