On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:29, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I also thought the word "need" is a bit strong :) It's more like
> > "syntactic sugar which is nice-to-have"
>
> As I just told Ilia on IRC, I think we should not add this (now) for a
> couple of reasons:
>
> - Adding new language constructs in mini releases is IMO not the way to
> go as it will make it possible impossible to run script that use this
> new construct not even parse on PHP 5.0.x servers. Adding normal new
> functions does not have this problem of course, as those scripts are
> still parsable.
> - Substring works just fine, adding this for performance reasons is IMO
> invalid.
> - People might want to take this even further and request {1,3}, {-3,2}
> and the like. (This was expressed in the past when talking about this
> stuff)
Reading this after writing my comment about speed. If I could get a
substring at 50% of the current substring function's time cost because
the above operator existed then I'd be all over it. While I agree syntax
is an issue because the PHP developers want to keep the language very
clear so that clueless newbies don't get confused, considering the {}
operator has only one purpose right now for strings, I don't think the
above concept would be at all hurtful to the PHP philosophy.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
.------------------------------------------------------------.
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
:------------------------------------------------------------:
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily. |
`------------------------------------------------------------'
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
