Brian Moon wrote:
Is typing really the bottleneck for developers these days? I must suck
then. I spend most of my day thinking or waiting on version control,
testing and deploy applications, not typing.
+1. I don't think reducing key strokes should be a goal at all, the goal
should be
Hello everyone.
I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
it here. Apologies for the long (and yet incomplete) e-mail. I am
ready to write
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
$add = | $x |= | $y : $x |= $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clear that |= is a new operator there due to the dangling |,
Hi,
I've always thought that just supressing the function keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Regards,
David
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf
Hi!
On 8/4/11 12:31 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
I've always thought that just supressing the function keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
My opinion is that
Hello !
I've always thought that just supressing the function keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Huge +1 for that.
Code using closures will be more
Good morning Rasmus,
Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
matter of taste :-)
it is only useful in one limited type of trivial closure usage
This trivial usage is actually the most
Hello,
$add = | $x |= | $y : $x |= $x+$y;
Not sure that it's really readable.
This is not the most trivial example. In my blog, there is a small
sub-section where I explain why this is more readable than an implementation
with the current syntax. See under Readability and A more complicated
Hi all :-),
On 04/08/11 09:23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 08/04/2011 12:08 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
$add = | $x |= | $y : $x |= $x+$y;
This does not seem to match the syntax of any language I know of so
people are going to have a hard time figuring out what this does. It's
not even clear
Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
matter of taste :-)
As much as I love the idea, I have to agree that using | doesn't really
make sense here and actually
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 21:18 +1000, Ryan McCue wrote:
Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
Thank you for your interest. This is just a proposal that I have tested and
works. Of course, the final syntax can be different. Syntax is always a
matter of taste :-)
As much as I love the idea, I have to
2011/8/4 Lazare Inepologlou linep...@gmail.com:
Hello everyone.
I am new to the php-internals list. I have joined because I have
implemented a feature that I would like to be included in the php
language: a shorter syntax for lambdas. I am going to briefly present
it here. Apologies for the
Oh, and I forgot one more thing:
As I read the internals, I noticed many times that PHP lexer is
somewhat limited in it's capabilities and sometimes the features are
dropped because of this issue.
It can be the case that the can be ambiguous and it will be just
impossible to add at this stage.
... ( $x ) = $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |= I have proposed) is a solution
that works because:
1.
On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
... ( $x ) = $x + 1 for example would be ambiguous if used in an array
definition, but is otherwise the best in terms of readability.
... people wanted an easy way to grep for function declarations
A new and unique operator (like the |=
+1 - think everybody'd want their functions to be searchable and searching
for complex patterns like (function)|(\|\=\) would really be a headache.
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
2011/8/4 Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org
On 08/04/2011 04:39 PM,
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
additions that add *no*
On 08/04/2011 05:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Victor Bolshov wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This
From your blog post:
All in all, I have tried to eliminate the syntax noise by
reducing the key strokes in the the non-significant parts
of the expression is typing time really the bottleneck for
productivity
Is typing really the bottleneck for developers these days? I must suck
then. I
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we
needed an alternative (short) syntax for arrays. This kind of syntax
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind gwy...@darkrainfall.orgwrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind gwy...@darkrainfall.orgwrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
22 matches
Mail list logo
