At 19:29 08-09-01, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > At 09:36 08-09-01, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > > > Using obscure single character operators is simply something that 
> we don't
> > > > do in PHP, it's totally inconsistent with the language.
> > >
> > >You know I hate magic more than most.  I have lobbied against it forever.
> >
> > Well, you did in certain occasions, but you encouraged certain degrees of
> > magic in the past.
>As did you.  You don't call <?= magic?  You lobbied hard to make that
>active by default.  I wouldn't call <?="Whoa"?> pure, would you?  If you
>don't know what it does, where do you start looking?

I don't consider <?= magic anymore than <?.  It should be documented in the 
list of PHP's special tags.  You could argue the same about <? itself, 
they're equally fundamental.  _() is magic, magic quotes is magic.  <?= is 
some trick, at best :)

>There is a heck of a lot more to gettext than just knowing the gettext()
>function.  Anybody who inherits code which uses gettext is going to have
>to read up on textdomain, .po files and the other related crud and
>understand the conventions.  One of these conventions, like it or not, is
>_().  None of this stuff is covered in the PHP documentation.  Just like
>anybody who inherits PHP code with regular expressions or complex SQL are
>going to have to read up on the conventions of those technologies which
>also aren't covered in the PHP docs.

You still don't see the point.  People don't have the faintest clue that 
_() is even related to gettext!  It doesn't look like a function but as 
some form of an internal operator.

>Exactly the same goes for <?= unless you happen to stumble across the
>one-line footnote on the page.

So that's a documentation bug.  It clearly belongs in the documentation 
about PHP's various special tags, just next to <?php, <?, <%, <%= <script 
language="php">, etc.  There's a logical place to look for that entry.

> > Cris showed a trivial way of doing that, if users actually want to do
> > it.  function _($str) { return gettext($str); }.  You don't need any new
> > mechanisms or magic to do this.
>We both know that this is going to affect performance.  Just for kicks I
>tested this on one of my gettext pages.  I picked a relatively simple one
>that didn't have any SQL or LDAP queries in it.  With the _() calls it
>managed 110 requests/second.  With:
>    function g($str) { return gettext($str); }
>it got 81 requests/second.  To me that is not a trivial workaround.  And
>like I mentioned before, if we had some way of installing this function in
>the namespace dynamically, I would be all for it.

We could have a way of aliasing functions.

> > At least give the user the option to decide whether he wants to pollute his
> > namespace.  At least give the code readers a chance to figure out what's
> > going on by grepping the PHP source code.  Sending them to the C source
> > code or to debuggers is the old style thinking of PHP.  Most new comers to
> > PHP today have no C knowledge.
>And most have ASP knowledge?  And where is my option to not pollute PHP
>with <?= ?  Even with asp_tags set to off <?= is still active.

You're right that <?= is not self explanatory.  FWIW, it still falls in a 
very clear category of language-level features, right next to <? and <?php, 
which you have to learn anyway (and again, if it's missing, so that's a 
documentation bug that can be fixed).  This is not something you could say 
about _().


PHP Development Mailing List <>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to