BB why not = then. imo the parser will easily distinguish array
BB definition from an expression
The last thing we need is symbol reuse. The parser can distinguish a lot
of things, the problem is that the human developer would be confused. =
has a clear meaning in PHP, adding other meaning to it
Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the
difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me.
- Stig
[Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both
classes and namespaces.
Zeev
At 21:35 30-09-01, Stig
[Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 09:35 PM 9/30/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hey,
I just started playing around with the parser to support the
namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an
ambiguity (with
[Zak Greant [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote:
What about . then (Java/Delphi)?
--Wez.
Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator?
Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the following single symbols
are available: % * | \ (outside of
Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the
difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me.
- Stig
[Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both
classes and namespaces.
I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it
doesn't impose too much runtime overhead.
+1 for ::
If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :
HTML:Table looks ok, too...
Cheerio, Marc.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To
At 12:46 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[Zak Greant [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote:
What about . then (Java/Delphi)?
--Wez.
Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator?
Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the
At 12:48 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
Whoa. Once again I'm on that train of thought that eliminates the
difference between classes and namespaces. +1 from me.
- Stig
[Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:05PM +0200, Marc Boeren wrote :
I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it
doesn't impose too much runtime overhead.
+1 for ::
If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :
Er... I usually don't want my code smile
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:05PM +0200, Marc Boeren wrote:
If that is impossible, how about some new combination, like :
HTML:Table looks ok, too...
Some languages use quotes like ' or ` to indicate namespaces. Since the
context in question may not allow the start of a string constant
On October 1, 2001 04:46 am, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[Zak Greant [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote:
What about . then (Java/Delphi)?
--Wez.
Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator?
Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only
On October 1, 2001 04:51 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 12:46 PM 10/1/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[snip]
I still think Zeev's suggestion (HTML::Table) is very good, if it
doesn't impose too much runtime overhead.
I don't like Zeev's suggestion because it does impose an extra hash
BB why not = then. imo the parser will easily distinguish array
BB definition from an expression
The last thing we need is symbol reuse. The parser can distinguish a lot
of things, the problem is that the human developer would be confused. =
has a clear meaning in PHP, adding other meaning
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:55:16PM +0200, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Maybe we need to think if there's a possibility to combine namespaces and
classes and therefore it automatically would be ::. I am against two
mechanisms that use :: but if we can find a nice way of combining the two
(haven't
Stupid suggestion, is ::: (three colons) pushing it?
What's wrong with :, except for the fact that it resembles a smiley?
There is already - and =...
Cheerio, Marc.
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
All I can say about this ... I don't want to language being
intelligent and try to assume any behaviour. In C (gosch, again.
No, I don't want to turn PHP into C) under certain cicumstances
you get ambiguousity warnings. But this wouldn't be a useful idea
for PHP because in C its only during
[Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hey,
I just started playing around with the parser to support the
namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an
ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible the
proposed syntax is.
Consider the following
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Stig Sther Bakken wrote:
I just started playing around with the parser to support the
namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an
ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible the
proposed syntax is.
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both
classes and namespaces.
Zeev
At 21:35 30-09-01, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hey,
I just started playing around with the parser to support the
namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC.
At 09:35 PM 9/30/2001 +0200, Stig Sæther Bakken wrote:
[Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hey,
I just started playing around with the parser to support the
namespaces syntax Stig laid out in his RFC. I think I've thought of an
ambiguity (with constants) which makes me wonder how feasible
Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time.
I don't think we can which means that it would put more logic into run-time
which is a bad thing IMO (especially for something new like this).
Or can you think of a way to differ between these at compile-time?
Andi
At
What about . then (Java/Delphi)?
--Wez.
On 09/30/01, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time.
I don't think we can which means that it would put more logic into run-time
which is a bad thing IMO (especially for
On September 30, 2001 06:15 pm, Wez Furlong wrote:
What about . then (Java/Delphi)?
--Wez.
Wouldn't that conflict with the concatenation operator?
Unless I am mistaken, it looks like only the following single symbols
are available: % * | \ (outside of quotes at least)
--
Zak Greant
PHP
Quoting Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
:: is taken, but why not do it the C++ way? It also uses :: for both
classes and namespaces.
+1 on that.
-chuck
--
Because of your melodic nature, the moonlight never misses an appointment.
- fortune cookie
--
PHP Development Mailing List
, September 30, 2001 11:02 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces ambiguity
Well the difference is that C++ can figure out what to do at compile-time.
I don't think we can which means that it would put more logic into run-time
which is a bad thing IMO (especially for something
25 matches
Mail list logo
