Oh, goodness, deary me -- this sounded so familiar I just had to do some
delving and hey presto! I refer you to:
http://marc.info/?l=php-internalsm=124655821522388
(...which, interestingly, even predates Zeev's 2010 claim, and I believe may
have taken inspiration from yet earlier suggestions
-Original Message-
From: yohg...@gmail.com [mailto:yohg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Yasuo Ohgaki
Hi all,
2013/7/21 Sherif Ramadan theanomaly...@gmail.com
The problem is I'm not sure where this type of information should
be
documented. It makes sense to put this on the
I know I'm still somewhat of a beginner with OOP, and not at all into
large-scale OOP frameworks (yet!), but I'm really struggling to understand why
the existing reference operator doesn't suffice for what you are after?
If you could explain in words of as few syllables as possible what you
-Original Message-
From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]
Sent: 28 October 2012 16:03
So... to be explicit here, you think in this situation:
class a {
public $b {
set($x) { $this-b = $x; }
}
}
$o = new a();
if(!isset($o-b)) {
/* delete files */
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
Sent: 25 July 2012 18:03
[...]
Fact: Adding a new name for a special kind of function as a syntax
construct is going to cost (possibly unnecessary) time and energy,
because now you have functions, and weird things that
-Original Message-
From: Morgan L. Owens [mailto:pack...@nznet.gen.nz]
Sent: 25 June 2012 15:41
On 2012-06-25 04:19, Ralph Schindler wrote:
The term 'column' makes a lot of sense for PDO working with
database
columns, but there is no concept of a 'column' in the array
structure
-Original Message-
From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com]
Sent: 24 November 2011 22:04
[... BIG SNIP ...]
If that doesn't change, then I rescind my previous panic attack.
--Larry Garfield
I echo that sentiment. On fuller review, I find a very high FUD
factor in
-Original Message-
From: Gustavo Lopes [mailto:glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt]
Sent: 23 November 2011 22:31
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:06:09 -, Pierre Joye
pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
The fact that we have reports here showing code not working
anymore
because of this change tells me
-Original Message-
From: Michael Shadle [mailto:mike...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 June 2011 21:37
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
I modified the vote page, pls move your votes to the desired
syntax
(or global -1)
This is a good idea to
-Original Message-
From: John Crenshaw [mailto:johncrens...@priacta.com]
Sent: 01 June 2011 23:00
Spot on. It has nothing to do with extra typing (and that sort of
design is part of what ruined Ruby). My fingers move plenty fast and
if extra characters make things more safe or more
-Original Message-
From: ekne...@gmail.com [mailto:ekne...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Etienne Kneuss
Sent: 01 June 2011 01:57
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)
+1 for a short array syntax.
But only if you keep it
-Original Message-
From: Adam Richardson [mailto:simples...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 April 2011 08:02
Indeed.
The '?' character already is special, so using '??' seems like a
safe,
practical approach. However, I'd prefer maintaining the form of the
standard
ternary operator with
-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
-Original Message-
From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On Behalf
Of Adam Harvey
Sent: 04 May 2010 13:15
The options are:
1. Apply Tomas's patch to make case-insensitive lookups
locale-ignorant. Pros: fixes immediate problem. Cons: breaks BC for
-Original Message-
From: Richard Quadling [mailto:rquadl...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 18 September 2009 10:43
Considering we have func_get_args(), maybe func_get_caller() would
be
a nice fit.
I don't like the idea of a constant (CALLER) which changes value as
you move around the
-Original Message-
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:m...@pooteeweet.org]
Sent: 02 July 2009 14:05
To: Ilia Alshanetsky
Cc: Paul Biggar; PHP Internals; Derick Rethans; Stanislav Malyshev;
Hannes Magnusson
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Flexible type hinting
On 02.07.2009, at 15:02,
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
On 19 February 2008 21:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] advised:
Hi Marcus,
Hi Troels,
The biggest issue I see is finding a syntax everyone likes.
Well, lets try some variations.
[2a] ! is not readable -- except
use Trait {
except foo1, foo2;
bar = foo1
}
[2b] ! is not readable --
+1 for (b) FWIW
Cheers!
Mike
-
Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser,
JG125, The Headingley Library,
James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom
Email:
On 07 December 2007 01:36, Gregory Beaver wrote:
[...snip...]
In other words, 1 line of code is needed to take advantage of
namespace's full protection and ability to import conflicting class
names into the global (in this case unqualified, not
containing :: in
the name) scope, while at the
On 23 October 2007 19:57, Gregory Beaver wrote:
Giedrius D wrote:
Anyway my main question was: is there any reason not to use
keyword use?
The only reason for me is that use implies some kind of autoloading,
as I suggested in one of my other mails.
H'mm, that's interesting. As I think
On 09 October 2007 08:18, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 09.10.2007 10:57, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
How come?
It looks like you're reading $bar[':5'], but forgot the quotes.
On the other side, what could be easier than a function call?
operator is definitely easier because it lets us
On 02 October 2007 07:16, Sebastian Nohn wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hi Johannes,
Our preference would be to stick to import because I
think the perception many will have of use is that it also
includes files (just based on some other languages).
I don't know much about other languages,
On 01 October 2007 13:46, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 01.10.2007 16:32, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
This was not on the table and the time of the 5.3 discussion, I for
one think its a bit too much magic.
Yeah, too Perl-ish for me.
Please stop this.
The minutes of the Paris meeting committed
On 15 February 2007 16:45, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 02/15/2007 07:42 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
On 02/15/2007 07:22 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
Hi Tony,
We've been here before. Last time it got taken off again
because it led to user confusion. People didn't seem to know
the difference
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 February 2007 16:09
I know how much you want to feel special, but here's the
definition of read. Your description of how you interpret
what you see falls into this definition:
Oh, no fair! You've
-Original Message-
From: Richard Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 February 2007 02:34
I was specifically thinking of the sheer number of emails to
PHP-General that would result.
Even if 90% of the newbies get it without any research, and
5% more figure it out from
On 05 February 2007 17:29, Brian Moon wrote:
Ford, Mike wrote:
I don't find:
$a = [1 = ['pears', 'apples'], 2 = ['juice', 'oranges']];
any less readable than:
$a = array(1 = array('pears', 'apples'), 2 = array('juice',
'oranges'));
Quite the opposite actually
On 05 February 2007 17:32, Brian Moon wrote:
Reading the array thread, someone mentioned having several ways of
doing things. One of their examples was the if: endif; syntax.
Forgive me if this has been discussed, but has anyone proposed
removing that for PHP6? Seems like the perfect time
On 06 February 2007 14:42, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 14:08 +, Ford, Mike wrote:
On 05 February 2007 17:29, Brian Moon wrote:
That is why you have coding standards. Our doucment states that
this should be written as:
$a = array(
1 = array('pears
On 04 February 2007 07:25, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Hi,
I thought I may have brought this up a long time ago but
couldn't find anything in the archives.
For a long time already I've been thinking about possibly
adding a new syntax for array(...) which would be shorter. I'd suggest
[...]. While
On 04 February 2007 18:38, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Yes, you will come across it if its added.
I find the Javascript syntax confusing to read as well. However more
importantly I do not see the point in adding this sugar to save 5
chars.
Nested arrays become
On 04 February 2007 21:41, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 23:27 04-02-07, Pierre wrote:
On 2/4/07, Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 20:14 04-02-07, Pierre wrote:
Hi,
On 2/4/07, Ilia Alshanetsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally find array extremely clear, in recent
-Original Message-
From: Sara Golemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 January 2007 19:02
* - Sidenote: I refuse to call object behavior reference by
default,
I've had too many people notice that it's not actually true
Hear, hear. My favourite terminology here (and I'm sure
On 04 June 2006 17:18, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I think if we implement a way to get a hash from an object,
or at least
a unique identifier that can be used as a hash, then it should be
implicit just like other things are implicitly converted when the
context is clear. Of course, you should
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The two topics are:
Inclusion of E_STRICT and E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR into E_ALL
-1/+1
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR has to be in as it's taken over some previously E_ERROR
situations.
It's probably too soon for E_STRICT right now, although it should be enabled in
some 5.x.0
On 05 April 2006 21:22, crisp at tweakers dot net wrote:
ID: 36983
User updated by: crisp at tweakers dot net
Reported By: crisp at tweakers dot net
Status: Bogus
That last remark is taking my well-meant criticism to the extreme;
surely you will know that
On 07 March 2006 09:28, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Please reviw and vote.
1) goto and break label
2) goto only (like C)
3) break label only (like Java)
4) nothing
1) +0.25
2) -1e38
3) +1e38
4) -infinity
Or, in other words, I want labelled break, and I don't want to have to emulate
it with
On 30 November 2005 01:41, Sara Golemon wrote:
, I'd like to turn the topic to a completely
different language
feature which (might) please enough people to get a rousing consensus.
Actual labeled breaks. Not the break+jump that was proposed
earlier in the
guise of a break statement, but
On 29 November 2005 09:18, Bart de Boer wrote:
I feel we're comparing apples with oranges here.
Break; is for breaking out of loops. It shouldn't have anything to do
with jumping to somewhere else. Let's say *if* PHP supported jumping
through the code. The following should then be two
On 29 November 2005 15:27, Sara Golemon wrote:
Just wondering. There's another thread about goto and labels
running as well. If they vote for something like:
LABEL:while (cond) {
}
Wouldn't this add another technical diffuculty with using ':' as a
namespace seporator?
On 28 November 2005 09:50, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about
what you would like. The : for example would work if mandatory
whitespace would be introduced for the ternary BUT this is very
very bad.
If my vote is counted (not
On 18 November 2005 11:48, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Andreas Korthaus wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
That's the problem - also grep does not know if [] is used for
arrays or stings. That's the same for programmers, it's often
not easy to conclude from context -
On 17 November 2005 21:42, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Andreas Korthaus wrote:
Can someone tell me the reason for this decision?
Very few people converted to using {} so the argument about
reading old
code doesn't really hold. If you go and grep through all the public
code out there, pretty
On 29 October 2005 22:56, Greg Beaver wrote:
For an operation as complicated as use the first variable
that exists
I would be most comfortable with:
$d = first-existing: $a, $b, $c;
That's a horrible syntax, but a fantastic name for a language construct to do
the job. Even better might
On 03 October 2005 15:41, Robert Cummings wrote:
Amazing how fast the assumption has become that passing
object values in
PHP5 is identical to passing the object by reference. It is not the
same, there are subtle differences. Either way I'm not weighing in on
the $ref = $this issue, only
On 18 August 2005 13:37, Jani Taskinen wrote:
sniperThu Aug 18 08:37:25 2005 EDT
Modified files:
/php-src/ext/ftp ftp.c
- php_error_docref(NULL TSRMLS_CC,
E_WARNING, PHP cannot handle files greater then 2147483647
bytes.\n); +
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
On 30 October 2004 02:03, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Nah that patch won't do because it'll effect [] also.
It's more complicated than that. I've tried separating them in the
past and
On 30 July 2004 18:45, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 10:32 AM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for
the goto construct is when over the years we have barely ever had
a PHP developer asking for it.
We clearly travel in
On 18 December 2003 23:38, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 10:17 PM 12/18/2003 +0100, Christian Schneider wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly, especially since one can set
reporting to E_ALL and
then ignore whatever one likes but with the way it is now
there is no way
of not being called for everything.
On 19 November 2003 20:34, Steph wrote:
Not to branch the discussion, but again: if we never plan on
removing functions, why go to the trouble of deprecating them?
Deprecation implies it will be removed.
.. and as Andi said earlier, removal without loud and clear warning
will break
On 05 November 2003 17:19, Marco Tabini wrote:
Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
On 05 November 2003 17:06, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2
On 05 November 2003 18:39, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
I don't think the number of characters is the main issue here --
it's about having a *nicer* set of characters. Personally, I'd be
still be in favour (although not quite as much
On 05 November 2003 08:50, Andi Gutmans contributed these pearls of wisdom:
At 12:33 AM 11/5/2003 +0100, Christian Schneider wrote:
I propose to add an alternative (backward compatible) short
array creation syntax: $a = [ 1, 2, 3 ]; and $a = [ 'a' =
42, 'b' = foo ];
Personally I don't
On 05 November 2003 15:57, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it?
It's strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language
but that doesn't mean that nothing
On 05 November 2003 16:48, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:
I mean c'mon, is 5 characters that much of a problem and is
absolute code clarity not worth those 5 characters? Character
efficiency is done in Perl, where you can do things like ~=
and @_, but that makes Perl
On 05 November 2003 17:06, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of wisdom:
Christian Schneider wrote:
Marco Tabini wrote:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
$a = array(array(1,2,3),array(1=array(1,3,2,2),
a=array(array(1,2,3,4),4,array(1,2)));
Besides my previous
On 05 November 2003 16:52, Marco Tabini contributed these pearls of wisdom:
$a = [[1,2,3],[1=[1,3,2,2], a=[[1,2,3,4],4,[1,2]]];
I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to count the
brackets in there... :-)
At quick glance says it looks unbalanced. A count shows why: 7 [s and 6 ]s
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 March 2003 01:47
To: Ford, Mike [LSS]
At 03:27 25/03/2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
I'd love to see, say, case_identical for requesting an ===
comparison, with
case continuing as before to do
-Original Message-
From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 March 2003 17:58
To: Joey Smith
At 05:07 24/03/2003, Joey Smith wrote:
I was reminded tonight of the following 'feature' of switch:
$a = 0;
switch($a) {
case 'somestring': echo 'Bug?'; break;
60 matches
Mail list logo
