Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! So here's my offer: if two core committers, or even just one, were willing to champion this feature, I will take full responsibility for "if" is redundant here - at least three core committers are already for this feature. In any case, not rehashing all the past arguments and their validity, maintenance argument would be in this particular case pure BS - there's not even slightest shadow of doubt that if such feature would be introduced, its support from any core developers point of view would be exactly as any other syntax. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi, I've been reading internals for a while and after reading some messages in this specific topic (Short syntax for array literals) I decided to give some userland input here as it seems it's somewhat a rare ocurrence in this list. If I had to guess, I'd say most people don't consider themselves worthy to send input because they lack the knowledge to do so, being an userland developer and not knowing a single line of code of the PHP core (that's the reason I merely read this list instead of contributing). I feel like nothing I have to say will help in any way, insted it will only clutter the list. Regarding this topic, I'd be happy to see this feature in the language as I feel much more comfortable writing $var = [ 1, 2, 3 ]; than $var = array(1, 2, 3); While I understand the concerns about readability and how this code will look for the newcomers, I consider this syntax very natural and it doesn't break backwards compatibility as it doesn't replaces the old syntax, simply adds a new one. I'll be contributing with my input as userland developer from now on if it seems fit. regards Rodrigo Saboya Sebastian Deutsch escreveu: Hello Lars, for an ambitious userland developer it is not very easy to follow this list and even join the discussions (though I think it's worth). Maybe there should be a point where some discussions from internals should be taken to lang - better not this one, I don't want to fuel the fire again - but some discussions really should. But this is a matter of process, especially extracting the results and save it at a place that is more accessible and persistent than the mailing list archives. This process should not imply that what's proposed there should be realised - in the end the core developers have to make the final decision. This process should be an decision helper for all core developers who are undecided. Sebastian Lars Strojny schrieb: Hi Sebastian, Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch: [...] Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice? Well, they can subscribe, can't they? http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php cu, Lars -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Lars Strojny wrote: >> Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters". > > They are heard. The issue is, as always in programming, you want to do [...] > maintainability, safety and security. I'm not saying the core > contributors are always right, but there being core contributors is an > evidence. Yes, but in this and some other cases (i've been reading internals for quite some time now) it's just a question of wether the majority with karma likes or dislikes (as in i like yellow more then red) certain feature. The short array syntax isn't a technical issue or dificulty as was discussed and acknowledged. It wasn't ment to replace explicit array() nor does't it impose noticable performance loss. And it's not like there wasn't a will to write a patch as in some other cases - it's just a metter of maitanance when the 'commiters' in general don't like it (as noted in conclusion in wiki). So in the end it's just a matter of veto power of those with karma over those without. Which is (in most cases) the right way to go as illustrated by the Company Argument. What i don't understand is why sutch a non intrusive feature had to go through sutch passionate discussion and voting process. There are commiters who like it (more then one) and probably could maintane it (i guess it wouldn't be mutch work as it's mostly a one time parser change binding to already existing and maintained functionality; though i might be wrong here). If so why couldn't this go in and just be ignored by those who don't like it? It's not like anything wolud change for them. Any way - it's just my thoughts and as the proposal was already declined i don't see mutch more reason for discussion. I think it will come back in couple months again though as most things with out really clear consensus. m. ps. it polite to say hi when entering a room, so: hi. -- Marcin Kurzyna - Software Engineer @ CrystalPoint here as "a voice from userland developers(tm)" -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! I'm probably in the 'nay' camp, but purely because I can't see any reason to take several years of existing code base and changing it. So I wish I had any idea about how we got to changing existing code base. No one ever suggested removing array() syntax. syntax but rather just adding something else to slow down processing Adding one extra clause to parser is not going to slow down anything in any noticeable sense. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi Chris, Am Samstag, den 31.05.2008, 08:42 -0700 schrieb Chris Stockton: > Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters". They are heard. The issue is, as always in programming, you want to do an informed decision. That's why I don't like architecture astronauts, as they aren't really informed (the day they wrote production code is long gone), that's why your Joe Random, your project manager does not dictate technical details, that's why the guy who joined your company last week doesn't start to decide things he can't estimate yet. Of course you listen to your project manager and of course you listen to the guy who came in lately (you better completely ignore the architecture astronaut ;-)) but there voices have a different weight than the voice of the guy who did all the freaky business logic stuff. Let's stick with the company picture: if your CEO comes in and requests a certain feature, often it is a good idea to unsell it (and if he is good, he will accept a good argument) - because of stability, maintainability, safety and security. I'm not saying the core contributors are always right, but there being core contributors is an evidence. cu, Lars signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello Lars, for an ambitious userland developer it is not very easy to follow this list and even join the discussions (though I think it's worth). Maybe there should be a point where some discussions from internals should be taken to lang - better not this one, I don't want to fuel the fire again - but some discussions really should. But this is a matter of process, especially extracting the results and save it at a place that is more accessible and persistent than the mailing list archives. This process should not imply that what's proposed there should be realised - in the end the core developers have to make the final decision. This process should be an decision helper for all core developers who are undecided. Sebastian Lars Strojny schrieb: Hi Sebastian, Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch: [...] Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice? Well, they can subscribe, can't they? http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php cu, Lars
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Not like they will be listened to unless they are "commiters". -Chris On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Lars Strojny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch: > [...] > > Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the > > internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice? > > Well, they can subscribe, can't they? > http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php > > cu, Lars >
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
I'm +1 btw /Hans Åhlin
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi I'm a new php programmer and i think that the first thing to think about is code readability and clarity. I think that this discussion looks like a grandfathers argument against new music and fashion, but every one (including grandpa) knows its vital for the communities evolution. Why keep a wooden wheel when we have rubber? Thats how i see at this topic. /Hans Åhlin
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi Sebastian, Am Freitag, den 30.05.2008, 18:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch: [...] > Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the > internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice? Well, they can subscribe, can't they? http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php cu, Lars signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Philip Olson schrieb: I also re-added the "Discusssion on the Web" section, because it reflects what the user base is thinking on this topic. This section of random blogs is unnecessary especially considering how open the lists are to the world. I consider this section to be a bad "If I want my voice really heard I'll post a blog entry instead of this list, and I'll even get a link out of the deal" precedent. Regards, Philip Hello Philip, if it hurts so much I will remove that section. Nonetheless I feel that the userland is less represented on the internals list - do you have a proposal to hear their voice? Sebastian -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
I also re-added the "Discusssion on the Web" section, because it reflects what the user base is thinking on this topic. This section of random blogs is unnecessary especially considering how open the lists are to the world. I consider this section to be a bad "If I want my voice really heard I'll post a blog entry instead of this list, and I'll even get a link out of the deal" precedent. Regards, Philip -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Johannes Schlüter schrieb: On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 13:32 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote: My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to refer to as PHP's actual user base, which I would further annotate that the "committers" graciously power, respectively; In general tend to favor introducing the syntax. So, if you were to apply that ratio to the tens(hundreds?) of thousands of people actually using PHP 50:50 Well, the "commiters" become "commiters" since they show continuing interest in PHP and spent time to learn about the internals and made experiences for taking the consequences from "bad" decisions. There are non-commiters here which are really smart and probably have way more experience than many others around here but many of the commenters here seem not to be of that kind, some say "hey, that's fancy new stuff I want it" but don't think about any consequences ... I simply assume that the amount of these people is less in the "commiters" group, and well, it are the "commiters" who will, most likely, maintain the engine over the nextfew years, non-commiters come and go on this list more frequently. Besides the "clue" factor there's another point: Most Contributors do stuff _they_ need and by chance "users" get it, too. That in the hope that others contribute, too and create stuff the other one uses. For most people there's not much reason to maintain stuff they don't need all they get is a bigger ego. If a "user" wants a feature he should step up Oh, and I like that posting from another project's list about that topic: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070607.html I have been watching the mailing list for long as I can remember and seems that features and such are never truly voted for. Perhaps a PHP.net voting system should be made, so PHP can progress based off what the community wants, not what a group of "committers" want. I Voting? Oh my. I don't agree to all stuff in the book, but in general it's a good read: http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/consensus-democracy.html respect fully the time and effort put into the project but time to time I see the vote of PHP (in the afore mentioned context) lost and discounted for. Generally speaking: Why should somebody develop and maintain a feature for free he doesn't want? If a "user" wants a feature they should prove that they will maintain it in the longer run and provide a patch. Most stuff in PHP was done since the contributors needed it themselves So back to the original topic: In a 50:50 scenario I'd certainly give more weight to people I know for contributing for a long time than somebody who just appeared on the list. That's what I said in my previous mail. johannes Hello, I updated the RFC collecting all pro and contra arguments and finally put it under "declined": http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays I also added a conclusion section - feel free to add stuff here. I also re-added the "Discusssion on the Web" section, because it reflects what the user base is thinking on this topic. For all those who were thinking, that this vote was senseless: Please use RFC if a new user askes for this feature again - IMHO this is better than referring him to the archives of the list. Maybe it also provides deeper understanding in the decision making process. Sebastian -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about Rasmus and Andi? ;) They are both "aye"s. And Andrei (heh and me! :-D -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: So back to the original topic: In a 50:50 scenario I'd certainly give more weight to people I know for contributing for a long time than How about Rasmus and Andi? ;) They are both "aye"s. I'm probably in the 'nay' camp, but purely because I can't see any reason to take several years of existing code base and changing it. So as long as no one is suggesting DROPPING the existing perfectly adequate syntax but rather just adding something else to slow down processing then I can put up with that. The accelerator will probably take care of any extra delays caused by all the additional features that are being added but as soon as something comes up that is detrimental to existing functional code? I keep being told - "You don't have to use it" - so as long as that is the case then I just have to live with the problems of trying to ready updates to libraries that are not in formats that I am used to :( PHP6 is going to break a lot of things but I hope THIS is not one of them? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! most people there's not much reason to maintain stuff they don't need all they get is a bigger ego. If a "user" wants a feature he should step up In this particular case it doesn't work - one can step up as much as one wants but if this feature is not accepted then no amount of stepping up is going to get it into the code. If it is accepted, there would be no problem making the patch and finding somebody to support it. Voting? Oh my. I don't agree to all stuff in the book, but in general it's a good read: http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/consensus-democracy.html Well, I agree voting is far from being ideal. Do you have any other proposal that would allow to arrive to some decision? Like not endlessly churning the same arguments on the list but have some decision? So back to the original topic: In a 50:50 scenario I'd certainly give more weight to people I know for contributing for a long time than How about Rasmus and Andi? ;) They are both "aye"s. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
You don't really have any vote anyway, you lost that when you tricked me for doing your work for you and took the money and run away.. --Jani Pierre Joye kirjoitti: hi Derick, On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array(). I'd have less issues with our OO strictness and the numerous new fatal errors for non engine critical problems. But know what? no one is arguing about that anymore even if today's php is stricter than php/fi. (put some salt on this answer, it is meant to show how wrong is this argument). Cheers, -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 13:32 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote: > My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I > am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a > success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to > refer to as PHP's actual user base, which I would further annotate > that the "committers" graciously power, respectively; In general tend > to favor introducing the syntax. So, if you were to apply that ratio > to the tens(hundreds?) of thousands of people actually using PHP 50:50 Well, the "commiters" become "commiters" since they show continuing interest in PHP and spent time to learn about the internals and made experiences for taking the consequences from "bad" decisions. There are non-commiters here which are really smart and probably have way more experience than many others around here but many of the commenters here seem not to be of that kind, some say "hey, that's fancy new stuff I want it" but don't think about any consequences ... I simply assume that the amount of these people is less in the "commiters" group, and well, it are the "commiters" who will, most likely, maintain the engine over the nextfew years, non-commiters come and go on this list more frequently. Besides the "clue" factor there's another point: Most Contributors do stuff _they_ need and by chance "users" get it, too. That in the hope that others contribute, too and create stuff the other one uses. For most people there's not much reason to maintain stuff they don't need all they get is a bigger ego. If a "user" wants a feature he should step up Oh, and I like that posting from another project's list about that topic: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070607.html > I have been watching the mailing list for long as I can remember and > seems that features and such are never truly voted for. Perhaps a > PHP.net voting system should be made, so PHP can progress based off > what the community wants, not what a group of "committers" want. I Voting? Oh my. I don't agree to all stuff in the book, but in general it's a good read: http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/consensus-democracy.html > respect fully the time and effort put into the project but time to > time I see the vote of PHP (in the afore mentioned context) lost and > discounted for. Generally speaking: Why should somebody develop and maintain a feature for free he doesn't want? If a "user" wants a feature they should prove that they will maintain it in the longer run and provide a patch. Most stuff in PHP was done since the contributors needed it themselves So back to the original topic: In a 50:50 scenario I'd certainly give more weight to people I know for contributing for a long time than somebody who just appeared on the list. That's what I said in my previous mail. johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello, On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Johannes Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 05:12 +0300, "Stan Vassilev | FM" wrote: > > It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS > > syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in > parallel): > > > > $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6]; > > > > $b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2]; > > ok, in a previous post I mentioned this was discussed short time ago (in > January to be precise) but well, then once again with more details: > > When I learned more about PHP one of the things I learned was that PHP > was proud to be a bit more verbose than other languages while not as > verbose as others. By using the array()-Syntax newcomers had a thing to > look for when reading code which I always saw as a central design > principal of the language. > > Now we can change such principals from time to time, the world changes, > so can PHP. But for changing such principals we need a clear consensus > imo. In the January discussion the result was around 50:50 which isn't a > clear consensus. Back then there was a small difference between > "committers" and "non-committers. In the group of the "committers" there > were a few more -1 than +1 votes, within the non-committers-group it was > the other way round (your favorite search engine should give you the > exact numbers, don't have it at hand). Now my second assumption is that > "committers" have thought a little bit more about language than "random" > commenters" of course there are exceptions but I think the general > picture should be like that. So in January this change wasn't accepted. > > So, now, less than half a year later the discussion restarts and we > aren't much further, from what I see it still looks like a 50:50 to me - > without "counting". > > Now to my own opinion: > > I read way more code than I write, code from different people using > different coding styles etc. so I like a more verbose syntax. My only question, is what does PHP want. When I say PHP, of course I am referring to the tens-of-thousands of users that make PHP a success. Lets remember that "random commenters" which I would like to refer to as PHP's actual user base, which I would further annotate that the "committers" graciously power, respectively; In general tend to favor introducing the syntax. So, if you were to apply that ratio to the tens(hundreds?) of thousands of people actually using PHP 50:50 does not not seem correct. Further, we need to vote for the future PHP, people who have not yet learned PHP, how can this benefit them. We need to also look at other languages, the most commonly used languages, how will the migration FROM XLANG to PHP be, as well as ZLANG to PHP. Lets have some true thought and analysis before another feature is rejected. I have been watching the mailing list for long as I can remember and seems that features and such are never truly voted for. Perhaps a PHP.net voting system should be made, so PHP can progress based off what the community wants, not what a group of "committers" want. I respect fully the time and effort put into the project but time to time I see the vote of PHP (in the afore mentioned context) lost and discounted for. Just my opinion. -Chris
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 09:19 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote: > Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is > forbidden to use. ... which doesn't help people having to read code without being able to influence the coding style... johannes -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
I think a public voting system is not a good thing (though the idea appealed me in the first place) - but I was convinced that it would lead to vote without discussion. For "listening to the user base" I originally had a headline "Discussion on the Web" were I refered to some blog posts covering that topic. Actually someone removed it by "Discussion on the List". Jonathan Bond-Caron schrieb: It's a big +1 for me and this sums it up PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt the language appropriately. What is appropriate is of course a really hard call which is what this is all about. My first concern about the [] debate is no one is really asking what the users want? Where did the [] requirement or proposal come from? There's no doubt in my mind that a [] synthax is something most users would want. The similar array declaration to javascript also further reinforces the use of PHP for web based programming. Finally, having a public voting system would definitely help gain more insight as to what users want. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
It's a big +1 for me and this sums it up > PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical > target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and > the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt > the language appropriately. What is appropriate is of course a really > hard call which is what this is all about. My first concern about the [] debate is no one is really asking what the users want? Where did the [] requirement or proposal come from? There's no doubt in my mind that a [] synthax is something most users would want. The similar array declaration to javascript also further reinforces the use of PHP for web based programming. Finally, having a public voting system would definitely help gain more insight as to what users want. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Derick Rethans wrote: From what I can see there is not a major majority in favor - in this case I'd even say that 50% should not be enough for this to get in. I know blog comments are not completely scientific and perhaps not an accurate representation of the whole commnity. But the comments on my blog post seem to indicate that the people in the community, that read planet php, who also felt strong enough about it to comment, seemed to like it. http://brian.moonspot.net/2008/05/28/short-array-syntax-for-php/#comments Again, I know many will think this is horribly innacurate and pointless because all of these people don't have CVS karma. And even I would take it with a grain of salt. But I think as Rasmus has said we have to evolve with the common web developer that is using PHP today. If it was up to me, none of the overly complicated OOP stuff would have ever made it in. I find it useless and pointless. You can do all that with a few functions, IMO. But it was added to make all the Java refugees happy. -- Brian Moon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello Sebastian,
-1, right now we have [] only in read context. And an array will be
constructed with 'array' keyword. Loosing this distinction is a bit of a
draw back for me.
marcus
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 12:58:24 AM, you wrote:
> fyi - i added a RFC
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
> please add your votes
> cheers
> Sebastian
> Sebastian Deutsch schrieb:
>> dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
>> would it make sense to write an RFC?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>> Stan Vassilev | FM schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I hear this often by other developers and I tend to agree with them,
>>> that arrays are used often, and often nested, so that having a long
>>> syntax for array literals tend to produce less legible code than in
>>> other scriping languages.
>>>
>>> $a = array(array(1,2), array(3,4), 5, 6);
>>>
>>> $b = array('a' => 1, 'b' =>2);
>>>
>>> We use arrays in our configurations, in passing complex parameters to
>>> functions, fetching information from databases, basically everything.
>>> So it adds up.
>>>
>>> Some frameworks have somewhat funny attempts to remedy this by
>>> introducing "shortcuts" like this: function a() { return
>>> func_get-args(); }. Of course this doesn't work when you need to
>>> specify the key name, and the overhead isn't worth it.
>>>
>>> It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
>>> syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in
>>> parallel):
>>>
>>> $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
>>>
>>> $b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2];
>>>
>>> There shouldn't be confusion to the parser as the brackets aren't
>>> preceded by an identifier.
>>>
>>> Was this discussed before on the list?
>>>
>>> Regards, Stan Vassilev
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
hi Derick, On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was > something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road > now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array(). I'd have less issues with our OO strictness and the numerous new fatal errors for non engine critical problems. But know what? no one is arguing about that anymore even if today's php is stricter than php/fi. (put some salt on this answer, it is meant to show how wrong is this argument). Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: > What's the idea behind repeating the same (good or bad) argument > endlessly with more or less prose around them? Thanks for voting at > the end anyway. It's an important thing that people are be able to show their choices with proper reasoning. I can only commend Greg for doing so. Unfortunately, there are too many misguided souls that just want to add stuff to PHP for no obvious benefit. PHP needs some love to create a better user experience, nor argument there - however, this love should to actually fixing the stuff that we have. PDO can use quite some attention for example. Let's not waste time (and sanity) by adding new useles constructs that only appeal to some. From what I can see there is not a major majority in favor - in this case I'd even say that 50% should not be enough for this to get in. regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Mike wrote: > > In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't > > for being so easy to learn and use. > > > > I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of > > "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You > > can't Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't > > return anything useful either. Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! > > Anyone can see that, search Google for "Array" and learn something > > about it. How many man hours are going to be wasted: 1. Searching > > for what the heck [] actually is. > > This "No Magic" mantra is something I have been using since day one to guide > decisions like this in PHP. But I think you guys are misappropriating it. [] > is already our array syntax. Yes, as an *indexing* mechanism for strings and arrays - that is different from a construct of actually defining it. They are two different things. > $a[1] assumes that the user realize that [] has something to do with > arrays. If they don't, they are out of luck, because as you say, you > can't search for [] and get something useful. But that's already the > case and we are simply building on that existing knowledge. We have > to have a minimum set of operators that we feel reasonable certain > that people understand. ?: is also not easy to search for, yet we > added this ternary shortcut. Likewise, <<< is not easy to look up, but > we added HEREDOC and more recently NOWDOC with this syntax. There is one difference though. The NOWDOC construct allows actually something *new*, whereas [ ] would just be an *alternative* for something can already do. > PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical > target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and > the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt > the language appropriately. What is appropriate is of course a really > hard call which is what this is all about. I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array(). I realize that there are now other languages that favor this construct, but I don't see why we should then add it as the *exact* same thing as an already existing construct. I'd be greatly disapointed if a construct would make it into PHP. I think it's the wrong way to go by adding cryptic constructs for something that we've already syntax for. Really, adding 5 more chars doesn't make any difference, and using the full "array()" increases readability as it's an explicit statement. Besides the mantra that you mention, there is another one that we shouldn't keep out of the picture either: PHP is suppose to be easy to pick up, and use, and so far we've done that by requiring explicit names for constructs (with the few exceptions of course). This is why we use array(), $ in front of vars, and preg_match over =~. regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Mike wrote: In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't for being so easy to learn and use. I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return anything useful either. Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google for "Array" and learn something about it. How many man hours are going to be wasted: 1. Searching for what the heck [] actually is. This "No Magic" mantra is something I have been using since day one to guide decisions like this in PHP. But I think you guys are misappropriating it. [] is already our array syntax. $a[1] assumes that the user realize that [] has something to do with arrays. If they don't, they are out of luck, because as you say, you can't search for [] and get something useful. But that's already the case and we are simply building on that existing knowledge. We have to have a minimum set of operators that we feel reasonable certain that people understand. ?: is also not easy to search for, yet we added this ternary shortcut. Likewise, <<< is not easy to look up, but we added HEREDOC and more recently NOWDOC with this syntax. PHP is about building on the knowledge and experience of the typical target user. This target user changes slowly as we all get older and the industry we are in changes and we need to recognize that and adapt the language appropriately. What is appropriate is of course a really hard call which is what this is all about. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! So you can present PHP users as senseless robots that are unable to understand array() syntax and I can't point to the extreme UNreadability Nobody ever did that. The next step would be to call me a blasphemer and pronounce anathema upon me because I refuse to vote for a feature that have already been voted against. You didn't refuse to vote. You voted against. You vote was counted. What's you problem now? You losing a vote? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello,
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come up
> with my own litmus test for new features.
>
> 1) is the syntax missing from the language?
> 2) if so, does the syntax add missing functionality or significant
> maintenance benefit?
> 2) if not, does the new syntax add significant value?
>
> #1 no, array() is the same [-1]
This is not a valid argument, in my opinion.
>
> #2 not applicable [0]
How can you dismiss whether the syntax adds benefit? If a single person
finds it beneficial it has a benefit, maybe not a majority benefit, but a
benefit none the less. Lots of people will find it easier to pick up coming
from other languages.
>
> #3 [-.5]
> * can't google []
If we are going to use google search as a determinative for language
decisions we got some major cleanup to do, lets start by removing curly
braces..
>
> * makes arrays simpler to type and take up less space
> * adds potential for confusion between array access and creation:
>
> $a['hi'];
> $a;['hi'];
>
> both are now suddenly valid PHP
As far as $a;[0]; goes, that is just a problem with useless contexts allowed
in PHP. Same can be done for $a;Array(0), which I doubt would cause
debugging problems (i do get your point). Really their are many places for
syntax errors, and php does allow a lot of useless syntax, like:
$a;;;$b;;;$c{{;;;{{;;;... that is perfectly valid
code. At the end of the day the developer needs to have sufficient ability
to debug their code.
>
>
> * syncs with javascript and other languages
> * opens pandoras box - PHP is simpler than Perl because there are not
> 20 ways of doing the same thing with different punctuation shorthands
>
See my previous post, 20 ways of doing one thing is part of the language
already, and what makes programming interesting.
> So I find #1 is -1, #2 is 0, #3 is about -.5
>
> Although the idea is somewhat attractive, I've found no drawbacks to
> array() syntax, and plenty of dangers with adding any new alternate
> syntax, and this ultimately makes my vote -1
Just my opinion.
-Chris
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
hi, What's the idea behind repeating the same (good or bad) argument endlessly with more or less prose around them? Thanks for voting at the end anyway. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Gregory Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've thought about allowing [] for a while and personally have come up > with my own litmus test for new features. > > 1) is the syntax missing from the language? > 2) if so, does the syntax add missing functionality or significant > maintenance benefit? > 2) if not, does the new syntax add significant value? > > #1 no, array() is the same [-1] > #2 not applicable [0] > #3 [-.5] > * can't google [] > * makes arrays simpler to type and take up less space > * adds potential for confusion between array access and creation: > > $a['hi']; > $a;['hi']; > > both are now suddenly valid PHP > > * syncs with javascript and other languages > * opens pandoras box - PHP is simpler than Perl because there are not > 20 ways of doing the same thing with different punctuation shorthands > > So I find #1 is -1, #2 is 0, #3 is about -.5 > > Although the idea is somewhat attractive, I've found no drawbacks to > array() syntax, and plenty of dangers with adding any new alternate > syntax, and this ultimately makes my vote -1 > > Greg > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
> -Original Message- > From: Brian Moon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 May 2008 16:21 > To: Antony Dovgal > Cc: Sebastian Deutsch; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...] > > Antony Dovgal wrote: > > On 28.05.2008 02:58, Sebastian Deutsch wrote: > >> fyi - i added a RFC > >> > >> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays > >> > >> please add your votes > > > > You do understand that you will not be able to use this > syntax in your > > products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP > > version to the latest one, right? > > That makes it even more useless. > > Right, so the sooner the better. =) > > -- I'm sure there are going to be PHP6 or later applications as soon as 6 is deemed production quality, and I suspect that may happen well (atleast hope) within the next 5 years. So makes the "won't be able to use" argument kind of pointless, anyway. If you want backwards compatibility there is or will be a whole raft things that you cannot use, like namespaces for instance. Jared -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Mike wrote: In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't for being so easy to learn and use. I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return anything useful either. Can you google for this: $var = 1; $var = "foo"; ? -- Brian Moon Senior Developer/Engineer -- When you care enough to spend the very least. http://dealnews.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello,
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Exactly. Open this can of worms and soon PHP is something else than easy to
> learn.. someone already mentioned that {} thing for objects.. :)
>
> Sidenote: There are more important things to solve in PHP 5.3 (and
> especially HEAD) than adding this little syntax sugar..
>
> --Jani
>
It's not syntax sugar, it's a construct which is used across many other
languages. It will improve the language for other people and might help
people to learn PHP. If we have resource issues commiting one line of
grammar the project has other issues to deal with.
>
>
> Mike wrote:
>
>> In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
>> for being so easy to learn and use.
>
>
>> I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
>> "syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
>> Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return
>> anything useful either.
>> Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google
>> for "Array" and learn something about it.
>> How many man hours are going to be wasted:
>> 1. Searching for what the heck [] actually is.
>
>
Anyone who has gotten to a level of knowing how to assign php variables will
likely have any troubles understanding what:
$config = ['smtpHost' => 'example.org'];
$oSmtp = someSmtpTransport($config['smtpHost']);
Is doing, and if you have a super complex multi-dimensional array,
regardless of brackets or array syntax it will be hard to understand by a
php new comer.
>> 2. Explaining to people that [] is the same as Array.
>
> $foo = Array('foo' => 'bar');
var_dump($foo);
$foo = ['foo' => 'bar'];
var_dump($foo);
Explained.
>> 3. Changing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
>> used.
>
> 4. Enforcing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
>> used.
>
> $str = "$var {$foo} " . $bar . " $see " . ' tconst ' . $not . ' $parsed ';
We already face issues with more then one way to do things, we deal with it
and it has not proven to be to difficult.
>
>> 5. Trying to change [] back to Array in hopes of getting code to work on
>> older versions of PHP.
>
> If your projects target versions are older versions then create backwards
compatible code just like you do with PHP4 classes and PHP5 classes.
>
>> 6. All the man hours wasted on it ALREADY that I'm sure could be much
>> better spent getting PHP 5.3/6.0 out.
>
> The discussion is the wasted time, not the code or implementation.
>
>>
>> There are enough roadblocks and other things to worry about already, why
>> would we want to add MORE? Especially for something with so little to
>> gain (if anything at all).
>
> Gain to whom? Remember, their is an entire community of developers out
their besides the people on this list who are accustomed to such use for
arrays. Also, a community of developers who would like an alternative syntax
to array to clean up their code a little, like me.
>
>>
>> This isn't about "well if you don't like it, don't use it" either,
>> because no matter what it will be forced on people who don't like it
>> eventually. People who like it will be constantly changing Array() -> []
>> and people who hate it will be constantly changing [] -> Array(). More
>> wasted time.
>
> Just like string literals $str = 'foo'; and $str = "foo";
class Foo {
public $bar;
public $baz;
public $qux;
VS
class Foo {
public $bar, $baz, $qux;
$obj = new Stdclass;
$obj = (object) NULL;
Really guys my only point is that we should not disregard a proposal for the
sake of having more then one way to do something. That is the beauty of PHP
and any successful language, it appeals to a wide variety of coding
standards, methodologies and paradigms. If you just think about it you can
name tons of things in PHP that let you do the same thing with two syntax's.
This is part of php's success. Some things are easier for people to learn
then they are for others.
-Chris
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Exactly. Open this can of worms and soon PHP is something else than easy
to learn.. someone already mentioned that {} thing for objects.. :)
Sidenote: There are more important things to solve in PHP 5.3 (and
especially HEAD) than adding this little syntax sugar..
--Jani
Mike wrote:
In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.
I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return
anything useful either.
Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google
for "Array" and learn something about it.
How many man hours are going to be wasted:
1. Searching for what the heck [] actually is.
2. Explaining to people that [] is the same as Array.
3. Changing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.
4. Enforcing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.
5. Trying to change [] back to Array in hopes of getting code to work on
older versions of PHP.
6. All the man hours wasted on it ALREADY that I'm sure could be much
better spent getting PHP 5.3/6.0 out.
There are enough roadblocks and other things to worry about already, why
would we want to add MORE? Especially for something with so little to
gain (if anything at all).
This isn't about "well if you don't like it, don't use it" either,
because no matter what it will be forced on people who don't like it
eventually. People who like it will be constantly changing Array() -> []
and people who hate it will be constantly changing [] -> Array(). More
wasted time.
Just my two cents.
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 08:56 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
+1 for: ['foo' => 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
'bar']
Here is why,
Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in php
then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
Array('foo' => 'bar'), verse ['foo' => 'bar'], most people will more easily
understand the latter when entering into the language fresh.
I.E.:
$f = Array('foo' => 'bar');
$f('foo'); // comes to mind first right, might not for a php developer but
for a new comer maybe?
$f = ['foo' => 'bar'];
$f['foo']; // great
Gives our users options, and does not break any existing code or enforce new
programming paradigm. The change is minor and no real cost in performance.
As for existing users, I find the completely negative comments a real
hindrance on the evolution of php as a language. If something does not
damage the language but will offer benefits for a broad user base, as well
as existing code, then let it be. I for one will change every line of code I
have that uses the Array() syntax for the shorter, more WIDELY readable []
syntax.
My only curiosity is if this will turn into a ecmascript morphism and we
wind up with a new object proposal instead of stdclass, like
$oStd = {'foo' => 'bar'};
echo $oStd->foo;
... doesn't even look all that bad but feels wrong and dirty, I think I
would rather (object) ['foo' => 'bar']; :p
-Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
In my opinion I don't think PHP would be where it is today if it wasn't
for being so easy to learn and use.
I attribute this directly to the fact that it didn't use a lot of
"syntax sugar" that is unreadable and can't be "Googled" for. You can't
Google "[]", and my guess is searching PHP.net for "[]" won't return
anything useful either.
Using Array() is SELF EXPLANATORY! Anyone can see that, search Google
for "Array" and learn something about it.
How many man hours are going to be wasted:
1. Searching for what the heck [] actually is.
2. Explaining to people that [] is the same as Array.
3. Changing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.
4. Enforcing coding standards for projects to prevent [] from being
used.
5. Trying to change [] back to Array in hopes of getting code to work on
older versions of PHP.
6. All the man hours wasted on it ALREADY that I'm sure could be much
better spent getting PHP 5.3/6.0 out.
There are enough roadblocks and other things to worry about already, why
would we want to add MORE? Especially for something with so little to
gain (if anything at all).
This isn't about "well if you don't like it, don't use it" either,
because no matter what it will be forced on people who don't like it
eventually. People who like it will be constantly changing Array() -> []
and people who hate it will be constantly changing [] -> Array(). More
wasted time.
Just my two cents.
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 08:56 -0700, Chris Stockton wrote:
> +1 for: ['foo' => 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
> 'bar']
>
> Here is why,
>
> Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in php
> then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
> Array('foo' => 'bar'), verse ['foo' => 'bar'], most people will more easily
> understand the latter when entering into the language fresh.
>
> I.E.:
> $f = Array('foo' => 'bar');
> $f('foo'); // comes to mind first right, might not for a php developer but
> for a new comer maybe?
>
> $f = ['foo' => 'bar'];
> $f['foo']; // great
>
> Gives our users options, and does not break any existing code or enforce new
> programming paradigm. The change is minor and no real cost in performance.
>
> As for existing users, I find the completely negative comments a real
> hindrance on the evolution of php as a language. If something does not
> damage the language but will offer benefits for a broad user base, as well
> as existing code, then let it be. I for one will change every line of code I
> have that uses the Array() syntax for the shorter, more WIDELY readable []
> syntax.
>
> My only curiosity is if this will turn into a ecmascript morphism and we
> wind up with a new object proposal instead of stdclass, like
>
> $oStd = {'foo' => 'bar'};
> echo $oStd->foo;
>
> ... doesn't even look all that bad but feels wrong and dirty, I think I
> would rather (object) ['foo' => 'bar']; :p
>
> -Chris
--
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
+1 for: ['foo' => 'bar'], Not sure if it was decided but -1 for ['foo':
'bar']
Here is why,
Array(), is much more confusing to someone coming with no experience in php
then []. Array() in most languages looks like a function call. So
Array('foo' => 'bar'), verse ['foo' => 'bar'], most people will more easily
understand the latter when entering into the language fresh.
I.E.:
$f = Array('foo' => 'bar');
$f('foo'); // comes to mind first right, might not for a php developer but
for a new comer maybe?
$f = ['foo' => 'bar'];
$f['foo']; // great
Gives our users options, and does not break any existing code or enforce new
programming paradigm. The change is minor and no real cost in performance.
As for existing users, I find the completely negative comments a real
hindrance on the evolution of php as a language. If something does not
damage the language but will offer benefits for a broad user base, as well
as existing code, then let it be. I for one will change every line of code I
have that uses the Array() syntax for the shorter, more WIDELY readable []
syntax.
My only curiosity is if this will turn into a ecmascript morphism and we
wind up with a new object proposal instead of stdclass, like
$oStd = {'foo' => 'bar'};
echo $oStd->foo;
... doesn't even look all that bad but feels wrong and dirty, I think I
would rather (object) ['foo' => 'bar']; :p
-Chris
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
> -Original Message- > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Sebastian Deutsch; PHP Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...] > > Please let's not turn PHP into unreadable syntax like perl usually > advocates. Besides this, it's only really useful for multi-dimensional > arrays - and if you go there you've most likely lost anyway. I personally would also prefer this syntax over array() for single dimensional arrays. Andi
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
> -Original Message- > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:44 PM > To: Antony Dovgal > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...] > > At a certain level everything is just syntax. There is nothing about a > "for" loop that can't be done with a "while" loop. All OO code could > be > written procedurally as well. PHP has always made an effort to match > the expectations of the typical web developer. 14 years ago the > typical > web developer knew Perl and C, so a lot of syntax was borrowed from > those two languages. > > Then kids started coming out of universities with Java on their brains, > so PHP adopted a Java-like OO syntax. Today's web developer is > typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either > Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to > all > those folks. > > We have to be very conservative and pick our spots when it comes to > evolving the language syntax, but we also can't bunker down and get > stubborn and expect the world to stand still around us. If we had > taken > that same position at PHP 2, PHP 3, PHP 4 or even PHP 5 just because a > handful of developers were content with the current state of things, we > would be in serious trouble today. I agree completely and this is exactly the situation where in the past we did evolve the language. We've been rightfully so conservative about it but I think this case is really a no brainer. There's a minority here who thinks it's confusing but besides it being a small minority, as Rasmus says, a large part of our user base especially the new ones entering development will be very used to this syntax and it will make their lives easier. +1 from me (in case my previous email without the vote wasn't clear :) Andi -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Antony Dovgal wrote: On 28.05.2008 02:58, Sebastian Deutsch wrote: fyi - i added a RFC http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays please add your votes You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest one, right? That makes it even more useless. Right, so the sooner the better. =) -- Brian Moon Senior Developer/Engineer -- When you care enough to spend the very least. http://dealnews.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
2008/5/28 Stan Vassilev | FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> var array = new Array(); -- same as -- var array = [];
> var object = new Object(); -- same as -- var object = {};
>
> And when people have both of those, guess which one they use in more than
> 90% of the cases.
>
> Regards,
> Stan Vassilev
I've moved from PHP to JS and I found this confusing. I don't any
more, but I was used to saying I wanted an array by using the Array
keyword (makes sense - no shortcut - no confusion).
I still say Array() and Object() as they explicitly declare my
intentions and others that would find [] and {} confusing (at least
initially) don't have to struggle with my code.
[] is fine for accessing an array. That's very common in many languages.
{} was confusing as that is that is used to wrap a function's code.
I don't see any real benefit in using $a = [] over $a = array()
So, for a userland developer (rather than a core developer) -1.
--
-
Richard Quadling
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard What's hard in that? Only logged in users vote, one login - one vote. :) Verifying that one user hasn't created hundreds of accounts for voting purposes? No problem if voting is linked to a php.net account, of course. Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28 May 2008 08:20, Derick Rethans advised: > Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is > forbidden to use. As is, of course, your right -- just as it would be mine to immediately add to my coding standards that it is compulsory! +1 (my irrelevant personal opinion being that it is elegant, expressive and highly readable ;) Cheers! Mike -- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Developer, C507, Leeds Metropolitan University, Civic Quarter Campus, Woodhouse Lane, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 113 812 4730 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
2008/5/27, Sebastian Deutsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> fyi - i added a RFC
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
>
> please add your votes
>
I'm -1.
> cheers
>
> Sebastian
>
> Sebastian Deutsch schrieb:
>
>
> > dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
> > would it make sense to write an RFC?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> > Stan Vassilev | FM schrieb:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I hear this often by other developers and I tend to agree with them,
> that arrays are used often, and often nested, so that having a long syntax
> for array literals tend to produce less legible code than in other scriping
> languages.
> > >
> > > $a = array(array(1,2), array(3,4), 5, 6);
> > >
> > > $b = array('a' => 1, 'b' =>2);
> > >
> > > We use arrays in our configurations, in passing complex parameters to
> functions, fetching information from databases, basically everything. So it
> adds up.
> > >
> > > Some frameworks have somewhat funny attempts to remedy this by
> introducing "shortcuts" like this: function a() { return func_get-args();
> }. Of course this doesn't work when you need to specify the key name, and
> the overhead isn't worth it.
> > >
> > > It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
> syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in parallel):
> > >
> > > $a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
> > >
> > > $b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2];
> > >
> > > There shouldn't be confusion to the parser as the brackets aren't
> preceded by an identifier.
> > >
> > > Was this discussed before on the list?
> > >
> > > Regards, Stan Vassilev
> > >
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Regards,
Felipe Pena.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
-1.
(the syntax with colons is appalling, and the other one doesn't look
any more readable - and is not javascript-ish either, since JS arrays
can only have numeric keys. I'd welcome the syntax without any chance
of specifying keys, but then, that'd be a really half-arsed solution)
Am 28.05.2008 um 00:58 schrieb Sebastian Deutsch:
fyi - i added a RFC
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays
please add your votes
cheers
Sebastian
Sebastian Deutsch schrieb:
dont have karma - but I would love it! so +1 here.
would it make sense to write an RFC?
cheers
Sebastian
Stan Vassilev | FM schrieb:
Hi,
I hear this often by other developers and I tend to agree with
them, that arrays are used often, and often nested, so that having
a long syntax for array literals tend to produce less legible code
than in other scriping languages.
$a = array(array(1,2), array(3,4), 5, 6);
$b = array('a' => 1, 'b' =>2);
We use arrays in our configurations, in passing complex parameters
to functions, fetching information from databases, basically
everything. So it adds up.
Some frameworks have somewhat funny attempts to remedy this by
introducing "shortcuts" like this: function a() { return
func_get-args(); }. Of course this doesn't work when you need to
specify the key name, and the overhead isn't worth it.
It looks as there may not be a specific reason not to allow the JS
syntax as an alternative syntax (while keeping the current one in
parallel):
$a = [[1, 2], [3, 4], 5, 6];
$b = ['a' => 1, 'b' =>2];
There shouldn't be confusion to the parser as the brackets aren't
preceded by an identifier.
Was this discussed before on the list?
Regards, Stan Vassilev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello again,
renderSomething(array('exclude' => array('a', 'b', 'c'), 'include' =>
array('d', 'e', 'f')));
vs:
renderSomething(['exclude' => ['a', 'b', 'c'], 'include' => ['d', 'e',
'f']]);
Your version is more readable but try this one:
renderSomething(
array(
'exclude' => array('a', 'b', 'c'),
'include' => array('d', 'e', 'f')
)
);
Or even break array('a','b','c') and array('d', 'e', 'f') in more lines.
This will become far more readable, with proper names and values.
This is the real life case for me.
Regards, Dimitar
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The next step would be to call me a blasphemer and pronounce anathema upon > me because I refuse to vote for a feature that have already been voted > against. > But why not? Go on, vote forever until it's in. > >From the looks of things, animosity also exhibits elasticity; cause, that's one hell of a stretch. (You want to reel it back in a bit?) I do find it funny the type of argument this has become (it'd be even better if the demography actually matched): - the kids want to do something new cause - well - everyone else is doing it - but, the parents have their house rules and traditions and are steadfast against breaking them. In that regard, I'd be a kid. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Lokrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But I have a question, people here talk that this is very very useful in > some cases. Can you please show others such cases so we can get your point? > I really want to know this super hyper cases, this syntax is mega useful. > You can't see the enormous difference between array(5, 3) and [5, 3]?! ;) Ok, so "easier" probably wasn't the best word to use. "Shorter" works; but, it isn't as enticing. The only ease I can see in it is simply for familiarity (see "kids argument" above). Though, the amount of ease will obviously vary from one person to another. - Jon L.
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi,
No one said it's a matter of life and death. But is it only a matter of life
and death improvements that should be considered for PHP?
The typical use case that benefits most from this is when a function accepts
arrays as a means of structured/named/nested options, something I use a lot.
Compare verbosity and readability:
quoteInto('SELECT * FROM Table WHERE x > ? and y < ?', array(10, 50));
vs:
quoteInto('SELECT * FROM Table WHERE x > ? and y < ?', [10, 50]);
renderSomething(array('exclude' => array('a', 'b', 'c'), 'include' =>
array('d', 'e', 'f')));
vs:
renderSomething(['exclude' => ['a', 'b', 'c'], 'include' => ['d', 'e',
'f']]);
or even vs:
renderSomething(['exclude' : ['a', 'b', 'c'], 'include' : ['d', 'e', 'f']]);
The key thing is, no one is requesting that array() be removed. Just that an
obvious and commonly used shortcut is added. It's not confusing, it's not
hard, JavaScript also has BOTH short and long syntax for arrays and objects:
var array = new Array(); -- same as -- var array = [];
var object = new Object(); -- same as -- var object = {};
And when people have both of those, guess which one they use in more than
90% of the cases.
Regards,
Stan Vassilev
Hello,
As I always will say -1 to this.
But I have a question, people here talk that this is very very useful in
some cases. Can you please show others such cases so we can get your
point?
I really want to know this super hyper cases, this syntax is mega useful.
Regards, Dimitar
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hello, As I always will say -1 to this. But I have a question, people here talk that this is very very useful in some cases. Can you please show others such cases so we can get your point? I really want to know this super hyper cases, this syntax is mega useful. Regards, Dimitar
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
-1 regards, Lukas -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wednesday 28 May 2008 09:11:50 Antony Dovgal wrote: > On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Today's web developer is > > typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either > > Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to all > > those folks. > > I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so handy > to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it either. > I perfectly understand that we (well, you) did it many times in the > beginning, but I believe that time is now gone. That is, maybe, because PHP didn't introduce any "new handy syntax" that could be borrowed from other languages. > The array syntax we have exists for many years and is used in gazillions > lines of code, it's known to every developer who have ever seen a PHP > script. And cursed many times because it's so tedious to write ... > In the same time, the [] syntax will definitely confuse people (wth? this > surely looks like invalid syntax!) and will only help to those how don't > know PHP, but have a certain experience with *script languages, i.e. you're > going to do a favor for 1% and confuse the remaining 99%. If you look at the other mails, you'll see that it's not about helping people that don't know PHP but other languages, but helping people writing code that is more concise and readable ... [[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [7,8,9]] is far easier to read than the same thing with array(). > And at last, but not least I don't see anything "more readable and > maintainable" in using square brackets to initialize arrays when the same > brackets are used to access them: > > $a = [$a[1][2], 3]; /* wth does this mean? */ This "it's unreadable and confusing"-argument is odd. In years of helping people in ruby/python*-channels, I have seen many questions, many questions that would seem exceedingly dumb, but i can't recall a single time someone asking about []-literals for arrays/lists, even [] is the subscript operator too for these languages. So you'd imply that seasoned PHP developers are less quick to understand than people that are new to other languages ... Btw, do you complain because () is used a) to group expressions b) to call functions c) for language constructs like for ()? Any "wth"-moments there? Or do you wish that strings would be written as string(foo) instead of "foo"? * Even a language that has the guideline "explicit is better than implicit" preferred [] because it's clear and concise ... doesn't that make you wonder? > > -- > Wbr, > Antony Dovgal Regards, Stefan -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 12:03, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! Want me to find some more 50 people to vote against it? If you find 50 active commiters against it Ah, you mean active commiters.. Then you probably will want to know that the actual number is 6:5 if you count only active contributors and not 21:8. Where did you manage to find 21 active commiter btw? We're having a conference these days, I believe I can find even more people just to show you how meaningless these votes are =) OK, they are meaningless. What is meaningful? The reason? Wasn't that the main reason FOR adding this syntax? The array() thing seems to you too hard to read and maintain, no? Yes. In many cases new one is better than the old one. In some cases, it might not be - but nobody proposes to remove array(). One can find a way to mangle almost any syntax - that's not the point. The point is that it *is* useful in a lot of cases. Nice. So you can present PHP users as senseless robots that are unable to understand array() syntax and I can't point to the extreme UNreadability of [] because .. because .. you do not agree? The next step would be to call me a blasphemer and pronounce anathema upon me because I refuse to vote for a feature that have already been voted against. But why not? Go on, vote forever until it's in. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! Want me to find some more 50 people to vote against it? If you find 50 active commiters against it - I think it'd make sense to hear what they have to say. Ask them why they didn't say anything by now. We're having a conference these days, I believe I can find even more people just to show you how meaningless these votes are =) OK, they are meaningless. What is meaningful? Wasn't that the main reason FOR adding this syntax? The array() thing seems to you too hard to read and maintain, no? Yes. In many cases new one is better than the old one. In some cases, it might not be - but nobody proposes to remove array(). One can find a way to mangle almost any syntax - that's not the point. The point is that it *is* useful in a lot of cases. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 11:34, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it either. If they don't do it and we do, people come from them to us and not the reverse. Yeah, from Javascript to PHP just because of better syntax. HA. The reason is to make life easier for people. And I think current results - 21:8 - tell something. Want me to find some more 50 people to vote against it? We're having a conference these days, I believe I can find even more people just to show you how meaningless these votes are =) I do not and will not believe that you - or anybody smart enough to use PHP - would seriously have any trouble understanding what that means. Arguing it is extraneous is one thing, but presenting PHP users as senseless robots hopelessly confused by even simplest concepts like using [] for arrays just doesn't make any sense. Wasn't that the main reason FOR adding this syntax? The array() thing seems to you too hard to read and maintain, no? If it's not, than I don't see what you're arguing for. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it either. If they don't do it and we do, people come from them to us and not the reverse. The reason is to make life easier for people. And I think current results - 21:8 - tell something. In the same time, the [] syntax will definitely confuse people (wth? $a = [$a[1][2], 3]; /* wth does this mean? */ I do not and will not believe that you - or anybody smart enough to use PHP - would seriously have any trouble understanding what that means. Arguing it is extraneous is one thing, but presenting PHP users as senseless robots hopelessly confused by even simplest concepts like using [] for arrays just doesn't make any sense. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 11:24, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: know PHP, but have a certain experience with *script languages, i.e. you're going to do a favor for 1% and confuse the remaining 99%. percentage is way different. such "short array syntax" is a common ground for a lot of modern dynamic languages. People who do not know PHP and come from *script languages are surely NOT the majority and I daresay their number is infinitely smaller than the number of people who know array() syntax by heart. And at last, but not least I don't see anything "more readable and maintainable" in using square brackets to initialize arrays when the same brackets are used to access them: $a = [$a[1][2], 3]; /* wth does this mean? */ initialize variable $a as array, with elements: 0) value-of-key "2" of array located at key "1" of old array $a 1) 3 difficult to "spell", but easy to understand Will you spell it for me each time I stumble upon such a "readable" construct, pretty please? -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 5/28/08, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some variety > of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is > second nature to all those folks. > > > > I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so handy > to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it either. > I perfectly understand that we (well, you) did it many times in the > beginning, but I believe that time is now gone. > > The array syntax we have exists for many years and is used in gazillions > lines of code, > it's known to every developer who have ever seen a PHP script. > In the same time, the [] syntax will definitely confuse people (wth? this > surely looks like invalid syntax!) and will only help to those how don't > know PHP, but have a certain experience with *script languages, i.e. you're > going to do a favor for 1% and confuse the remaining 99%. percentage is way different. such "short array syntax" is a common ground for a lot of modern dynamic languages. and common ground is nice (it makes life easier not only to people who come to php from other languages, but also to people who would come to other languages, like javascript, after php) > And at last, but not least I don't see anything "more readable and > maintainable" in using square brackets to initialize arrays when the same > brackets are used to access them: > > $a = [$a[1][2], 3]; /* wth does this mean? */ initialize variable $a as array, with elements: 0) value-of-key "2" of array located at key "1" of old array $a 1) 3 difficult to "spell", but easy to understand -- Alexey Zakhlestin http://blog.milkfarmsoft.com/ -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Antony Dovgal wrote: > On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some > > variety of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this > > array syntax is second nature to all those folks. > > I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so > handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it > either. I perfectly understand that we (well, you) did it many times > in the beginning, but I believe that time is now gone. > > The array syntax we have exists for many years and is used in > gazillions lines of code, it's known to every developer who have ever > seen a PHP script. In the same time, the [] syntax will definitely > confuse people (wth? this surely looks like invalid syntax!) and will > only help to those how don't know PHP, but have a certain experience > with *script languages, i.e. you're going to do a favor for 1% and > confuse the remaining 99%. Right, and I will add immediately to my coding standard that this is forbidden to use. regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 10:44, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to all those folks. I don't recall any languages to introduce new syntax because it's so handy to those who come from PHP and I see no reasons for us to do it either. I perfectly understand that we (well, you) did it many times in the beginning, but I believe that time is now gone. The array syntax we have exists for many years and is used in gazillions lines of code, it's known to every developer who have ever seen a PHP script. In the same time, the [] syntax will definitely confuse people (wth? this surely looks like invalid syntax!) and will only help to those how don't know PHP, but have a certain experience with *script languages, i.e. you're going to do a favor for 1% and confuse the remaining 99%. And at last, but not least I don't see anything "more readable and maintainable" in using square brackets to initialize arrays when the same brackets are used to access them: $a = [$a[1][2], 3]; /* wth does this mean? */ -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >>> >>> please add your votes >> >> I'm +1. Same here, still +1. Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Antony Dovgal wrote: On 28.05.2008 10:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest one, right? That makes it even more useless. That's great argument. So nice to know everything we do for 5.3 and 6 is completely useless :) No, THAT is really great argument. Compare "everything we do" with "backward incompatible syntax that duplicates already existing one, but 5 characters shorter" and find two differences. At a certain level everything is just syntax. There is nothing about a "for" loop that can't be done with a "while" loop. All OO code could be written procedurally as well. PHP has always made an effort to match the expectations of the typical web developer. 14 years ago the typical web developer knew Perl and C, so a lot of syntax was borrowed from those two languages. Then kids started coming out of universities with Java on their brains, so PHP adopted a Java-like OO syntax. Today's web developer is typically writing half their app in some variety of Ecmascript, either Javascript or Actionscript and this array syntax is second nature to all those folks. We have to be very conservative and pick our spots when it comes to evolving the language syntax, but we also can't bunker down and get stubborn and expect the world to stand still around us. If we had taken that same position at PHP 2, PHP 3, PHP 4 or even PHP 5 just because a handful of developers were content with the current state of things, we would be in serious trouble today. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Jani Taskinen wrote: > Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti: > > > please add your votes > > > > I'm +1. > > > > BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? > > For the record: I'm -1. array() is enough. > Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting, isn't there enough > spam already? I agree on both points. I've mentioned this before as well, but I'll repeat. There is no reason to add another syntax for *exactly* the same thing, especially because it's ungoogable and confusing if you have to read code like: $a = [8,['a','b','c'],'foo']; $b = $a[8][1]; Please let's not turn PHP into unreadable syntax like perl usually advocates. Besides this, it's only really useful for multi-dimensional arrays - and if you go there you've most likely lost anyway. regards, Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 10:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest one, right? That makes it even more useless. That's great argument. So nice to know everything we do for 5.3 and 6 is completely useless :) No, THAT is really great argument. Compare "everything we do" with "backward incompatible syntax that duplicates already existing one, but 5 characters shorter" and find two differences. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest one, right? That makes it even more useless. That's great argument. So nice to know everything we do for 5.3 and 6 is completely useless :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 28.05.2008 02:58, Sebastian Deutsch wrote: fyi - i added a RFC http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays please add your votes You do understand that you will not be able to use this syntax in your products for at least next 5 years without rising min required PHP version to the latest one, right? That makes it even more useless. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard What's hard in that? Only logged in users vote, one login - one vote. :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
On 27 May 2008, at 19:44, Greg Beaver wrote: Stanislav Malyshev wrote: please add your votes I'm +1. BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard I vote we don't talk about voting methodology in this thread. Regards, Philip -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: please add your votes I'm +1. BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? Not hard at all. Certifying that people only vote once - hard :) Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb: please add your votes I'm +1. BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? I don't think it's hard: http://wiki.splitbrain.org/plugin:poll http://wiki.splitbrain.org/plugin:userpoll Sebastian -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
I'm +1. -Andrei Sebastian Deutsch wrote: fyi - i added a RFC http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays please add your votes cheers Sebastian -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: please add your votes I'm +1. I'm ok with it as well. Like I said over a year ago (*), it is a syntax very familiar to web developers and it feels natural to most people. (*) http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=117060700805108&w=2 -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Hi! Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting, isn't there enough spam already? What do you mean "no more voting"? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
Stanislav Malyshev kirjoitti: please add your votes I'm +1. BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? For the record: I'm -1. array() is enough. Ridiculous idea to begin with..and please no more voting, isn't there enough spam already? --Jani -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Short syntax for array literals [...]
please add your votes I'm +1. BTW - how hard would it be to add voting interface to the wiki? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
