2011/4/1 Hannes Magnusson :
> 2011/3/31 Pål-Kristian Hamre :
>> We need access to this repository to commit changes to the infrastructure:
>> https://svn.php.net/repository/systems/
>>
>
> Verified. He is working on bringing the wikibox back to live, and will
> be committing configs and stuffz for
I like this - especially .7 and .8.
The $: is intuitive because it looks like a variable that doesn't contain
anything and the : specifies what comes then.
However I'd rather use the "?" character than "@" for the simple reason that
I see this as a more careful way to access an array and not as a
ResourceBundle::__construct() uses ures_open(), which performs validity checks
on the given locale identifier. That's reasonable, as the fallback
functionality only works with proper locale IDs (example: you pass "de_DE", but
no such bundle exist, it will then use the bundle "de" if that exists)
That sounds fine to me, and the extension to ArrayAccess is really
clever. I agree that 'take more care' is a better way to view the array
access. It means both the array access should be more careful (to check
and avoid errors, rather than just proceed), and also the 'caller'
should be more caref
There was also my suggestion of a "checked ternary" operator [see my
previous email in this thread.] Backwards compatible, practical, and simple.
It doesn't address the main issues of code duplication and nullness
checking, IMHO, so isn't a contender. Even though it's simple and
compatible, it i
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Schmidt
wrote:
> There was also my suggestion of a "checked ternary" operator [see my
>> previous email in this thread.] Backwards compatible, practical, and
>> simple.
>>
>
> It doesn't address the main issues of code duplication and nullness
> checking, IMHO,
