Hi
This is great.
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
and
$resultOfFunc = returnsFunc()();
I think would add consistency because it would allow direct operations on any
returned value. I agree that it is not the most reader friendly
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
does this mean
$result = new (ResultMaker()-getIt());
or
$result = (new ResultMaker())-getIt();
I assume the later, but that is
On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
does this mean
$result = new (ResultMaker()-getIt());
or
$result = (new
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
I know that this is not much of an argument, but it works the same way
in Javascript too, which is very convenient. The intended behaviour is
obvious...even though it could be (mis-)interpreted by php.
Lars
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
Isn't this issue just a matter of defining one thing as being correct
and then get on with it? There are lots of ambiguities in php's
grammar already.
--
troels
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Lars Schultz [mailto:lars.schu...@toolpark.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 juni 2010 16:04
Aan: internals@lists.php.net
Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Array Dereferencing
$result = new ResultMaker()-getIt();
I know that this is not much of an argument,
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Oettinger [mailto:ja...@oettinger.dk]
Sent: 08 June 2010 14:09
On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new
The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already
documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting
the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity
here :)
Also, allowing new (blah()); would be a fairly big BC break I'd say.
How? Maybe
On 8 June 2010 17:28, Brian Moon br...@moonspot.net wrote:
The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already
documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting
the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity
here :)
Also, allowing new
Hi Lukas:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:28:12AM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Same deal as E_NOTICE. Either you care about them or you dont.
Exactly. The type hinting situation is unique. It is something that
applications will frequently want to handle gracefully in order to
provide useful
Denis,
I started reviewing the patch, but unfortunately things at work get a bit
hectic so haven't made too much progress ;(
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Denis Gasparin
denis.gaspa...@edistar.comwrote:
Hi.
Did you have the time to review the patches? Any problem with them?
Thank you in
11 matches
Mail list logo
