On 01/19/2010 09:29 AM, Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Alexey Zakhlestinindey...@gmail.com wrote:
Would be nice if something like this worked too:
(new Class())-method();
I was just looking at some Java code and thinking, man I wish PHP did this
Funny, I was
On 01/19/2010 01:30 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Funny, I was just thinking the opposite man I wish PHP never allows
this :)
Can of worms I say, can of worms..
Exactly my thought.
Please, let's not open it.
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
---
http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP
--
PHP
Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
Would be nice if something like this worked too:
(new Class())-method();
If you *really* want to do this you can use a factory method:
Class::create()-method();
- Chris
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
hi Stan,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
What it means is that if foo() returns callable value (which probably should
be function name or closure) then it would be called.
On 19.01.2010, at 13:47, Christian Schneider wrote:
Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
Would be nice if something like this worked too:
(new Class())-method();
If you *really* want to do this you can use a factory method:
Class::create()-method();
I know. That's what I do if I need it.
Or just
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:55:32PM +0300, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On 19.01.2010, at 13:47, Christian Schneider wrote:
Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
Would be nice if something like this worked too:
(new Class())-method();
If you *really* want to do this you can use a factory method:
On 01/19/2010 01:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
dynamic object and array de-referencing like
(new class)-method() and get_array()[index].
I honestly
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 01/19/2010 01:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
dynamic object and array
2010/1/19 Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 01/19/2010 01:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
I'd rather see two other things that are missing,
Hi,
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 12:31 +0100, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 01/19/2010 01:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
I think that becomes hard to read quite easily.
I'd rather see two other things that are
I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
dynamic object and array de-referencing like
(new class)-method() and get_array()[index].
I honestly don't see func()()()() make anything better in the
world of a PHP programmer.
The array de-referencing and dynamic objects are much
Hi!
I'm not a fan of this kind of syntaxic sugars, especially for
procedural implementation only. What are the benefits?
Some as all other syntax sugars - better-looking code.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
s...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
Hi!
I'm not a fan of this kind of syntaxic sugars, especially for
procedural implementation only. What are the benefits?
Some as all other syntax sugars - better-looking code.
Ah ok, then let say -1 from here for the
Hi!
I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
dynamic object and array de-referencing like
(new class)-method() and get_array()[index].
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of
exotic - why create object only to call one method and immediately
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of exotic -
why create object only to call one method and immediately drop it? Why this
method is not static then?
Why would this imply dropping the
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of exotic -
why create object only to call one method and immediately drop it? Why this
method is not static then?
Why would this
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
...
I think language enhancements with no BC breaks that offer a wider
toolset to programmers is a good thing. I would also like to see the
On 19.01.2010, at 18:03, Chris Stockton wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
...
I think language enhancements with no BC breaks that offer a wider
toolset to
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of exotic -
why create object only to call one method and
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Stanislav Malyshev s...@zend.com wrote:
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of exotic
-
why create object only
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
On 19.01.2010, at 18:03, Chris Stockton wrote:
enhancements in the sense that they enable things that were not possible
before, sure. syntax sugar that hurts readability, not really.
if you are worried
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
What it means is that if foo() returns callable value (which probably
should be function name or closure) then it would be called. Parameters
and more than two sets of () work too.
Of
On 19.01.2010, at 18:39, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I don't mind the foo()() syntax, especially now that we have closures.
But people are right, we have a longstanding feature request for
$foo()[0] as well, so if we start down this path of adding chaining, we
should do that one as well and see if
Hello,
I have a few questions about error reporting in extensions for 5.3.1.
I need to convert any IS_OBJECT zval to char* without issuing an error;
failed conversions must throw.
I've tried this inside a PHP_METHOD:
zend_error_handling error_handling;
zend_replace_error_handling(EH_THROW,
Op 1/19/10 1:27 AM, Stanislav Malyshev schreef:
Hi!
I wrote a small patch that enables this kind of syntax in PHP:
foo()();
What it means is that if foo() returns callable value (which probably
should be function name or closure) then it would be called. Parameters
and more than two
On Tue, January 19, 2010 1:29 am, Eddie Drapkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Alexey Zakhlestin
indey...@gmail.com wrote:
Would be nice if something like this worked too:
  (new Class())-method();
I was just looking at some Java code and thinking, man I wish PHP did
this.
On Tue, January 19, 2010 5:19 am, Alain Williams wrote:
I have seen the argument that things like this will confuse novice
programmers,
maybe: but would they ever try to type something like that ?
Yes, because they see the experts typing something like that.
What's more, they have to READ
On Tue, January 19, 2010 10:05 am, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I'd rather see two other things that are missing, support for
dynamic object and array de-referencing like
(new class)-method() and get_array()[index].
The second was next on my list, while the first seems to me kind of
Hi!
I don't mind the foo()() syntax, especially now that we have closures.
But people are right, we have a longstanding feature request for
$foo()[0] as well, so if we start down this path of adding chaining, we
should do that one as well and see if any others make sense.
As I said, that was
Hi!
enhancements in the sense that they enable things that were not
possible before, sure. syntax sugar that hurts readability, not
really.
It starts to seem to me that the notion of readability is rather
different here than in the rest of the world. Lately, almost any syntax
sugar features
Hi!
When I use one, I consider it exotic/obtuse/unusual enough to require
self-documenting code, with a temp variable whose name include
'closure'.
By use I meant not use it so rarely that it's an exotic hack for me
that I have to explain what I did here, I mean write code that relies
on
Hi Stas:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:30:28AM -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
People like to speak in full expressive sentences
Sure. But one needs to understand the language. Otherwise the reader
needs to go hunting around a dictionary (or in our case, the source code)
to figure out what
Hi!
Sure. But one needs to understand the language. Otherwise the reader
needs to go hunting around a dictionary (or in our case, the source code)
to figure out what the heck the person (code) is trying to say (do).
Chaining produces code that is not self-documenting.
If you don't
Hi Stas:
If you don't understand the language, nothing is self-documenting.
Yes. For clarity, what I meant by the knowing the language reference,
I was imagining a PHP programmer trying to read/debug the code of a
pre-existing project for the first time. When the code does stuff like:
Hi!
$eep-oop()-ork()-ah()-ah();
the newcomer will have to spend significant time rummaging around the
source code to figure out what classes are involved.
As opposed to:
$oop = $eep-oop();
$ork = $oop-ork();
$ah = $ork-ah();
$ah2 = $ah-ah();
where it instantly becomes crystal clear! Come
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
$eep-oop()-ork()-ah()-ah();
the newcomer will have to spend significant time rummaging around the
source code to figure out what classes are involved.
As opposed to:
$oop = $eep-oop();
$ork = $oop-ork();
$ah =
On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Alain Williams wrote:
$eep-oop()-ork()-ah()-ah();
the newcomer will have to spend significant time rummaging around the
source code to figure out what classes are involved.
As opposed to:
$oop = $eep-oop();
$ork = $oop-ork();
$ah = $ork-ah();
$ah2 = $ah-ah();
Hi Stas:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
$oop = $eep-oop();
$ork = $oop-ork();
$ah = $ork-ah();
$ah2 = $ah-ah();
where it instantly becomes crystal clear!
:) Yep, that's lousy code.
Variables should be named for the classes they represent.
$eep = new
If everything is chained, it's a pain to figure out such basic workings.
Hi,
I still find it hard to understand why some should artificially claim basic
constructs supported by other languages for years are somehow more complex
than PHP's existing semantics.
Supporting dereferencing in all
39 matches
Mail list logo
