[PHP-DOC] The ternary operator
Having started my documentation career by doing some work on the main Operators page, I'd like to introduce a subject that has long bugged me: the term the ternary operator to describe ? : Whilst it's strictly true that, as far as PHP is concerned , ? : is *the* ternary operator, that's not really a description of its function, in contrast to most other operators which are usually referred to by their functionality. It's also a (very slight) potential pitfall should PHP ever be moved to introduce another ternary operator (and this *was* proposed recently, using ?? : or thereabouts to do an isset() test rather than an ==true one!). I'd like to consider reworking the docs a bit to refer to ? : as the conditional operator (or perhaps selection operator or choice operator), and would like to solicit opinions on such a move. I realise this is a fairly big departure from past practice, and might even be regarded in the same light as a BC break, so some reasoned discussion would be welcome. I also think consideration should be given to moving it out to its own sect1, as to me it's not really think it's a true comparison operator - but this is secondary to the main topic of changing how its referred to. What do you think? Cheers! Mike -- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation, Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus, Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom E: m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
[PHP-DOC] Re: The ternary operator
Ford, Mike m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk writes: Having started my documentation career by doing some work on the main Operators page, I’d like to introduce a subject that has long bugged me: the term “the ternary operator” to describe ? : Whilst it’s strictly true that, as far as PHP is concerned , ? : is * the* ternary operator, that’s not really a description of its function, in contrast to most other operators which are usually referred to by their functionality. It’s also a (very slight) potential pitfall should PHP ever be moved to introduce another ternary operator (and this *was* proposed recently, using ?? : or thereabouts to do an isset() test rather than an ==true one!). I’d like to consider reworking the docs a bit to refer to ? : as the “conditional operator” (or perhaps “selection operator ” or “choice operator”), and would like to solicit opinions on such a move. I realise this is a fairly big departure from past practice, and might even be regarded in the same light as a BC break, so some reasoned discussion would be welcome. I also think consideration should be given to moving it out to its own sect1, as to me it’s not really think it’s a true comparison operator – but this is secondary to the main topic of changing how its referred to. What do you think? Cheers! (Is it my client or your line length setting causing this wrapping? I dot norally see this above). I came across something similar years ago when reviewing tech docs for our own language. As a result, I think you would be fighting something too institutionalised tbh. And the rewards would be minor compared to the hassle of the petty bickering and inconsistencies introduced with legacy documenttion and similar constructs in other languages. The possibilitey are endless and since there is nothing immediately wrong or obvious with the current situation I would be tempted to concentrate on other areas and leave it. (as a side note, and not meaning to net nanny ;), your signature delimiter should be -- and not -- to enable auto cropping)
RE: [PHP-DOC] Re: The ternary operator
-Original Message- From: Richard Riley [mailto:rile...@googlemail.com] Sent: 10 June 2011 09:59 Ford, Mike m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk writes: Having started my documentation career by doing some work on the main Operators page, I’d like to introduce a subject that has long bugged me: the term “the ternary operator” to describe ? : (Is it my client or your line length setting causing this wrapping? I dot norally see this above). Might be me -- as work email is Outlook, that was manually wrapped! I came across something similar years ago when reviewing tech docs for our own language. As a result, I think you would be fighting something too institutionalised tbh. And the rewards would be minor compared to the hassle of the petty bickering and inconsistencies introduced with legacy documenttion and similar constructs in other languages. The possibilitey are endless and since there is nothing immediately wrong or obvious with the current situation I would be tempted to concentrate on other areas and leave it. You may be right, but it's bugged me for so long I just wanted to lay it out on the table and see what happened. (as a side note, and not meaning to net nanny ;), your signature delimiter should be -- and not -- to enable auto cropping) It is. It always has been. That must be Outlook interfering again...! :( This message is definitely leaving with the right sig delimiter as I've just checked it. Cheers! Mike -- Mike Ford, Electronic Information Developer, Libraries and Learning Innovation, Leeds Metropolitan University, C507 City Campus, Portland Way, LEEDS, LS1 3HE, United Kingdom E: m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk T: +44 113 812 4730 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm
[PHP-DOC] Re: The ternary operator
Ford, Mike m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk writes: It is. It always has been. That must be Outlook interfering again...! :( This message is definitely leaving with the right sig delimiter as I've just checked it. Cheers! Mike Worked that time! Possibly a gmane glitch.
Re: [PHP-DOC] The ternary operator
On 06/10/2011 03:46 AM, Ford, Mike wrote: What do you think? I think changing this is an uphill battle. While not completely accurate as you say, people are rather used to ?: being known as *the* ternary operator. If you look up ?: on Wikipedia it is the first name you see. A while it says it is *a* ternary operator, since most languages only have one, the association is pretty tight. I think if we end up with a second ternary operator at some point it won't be too hard to come up with a variation on the name which still includes the word ternary. -Rasmus
[PHP-DOC] Fwd: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml
-- Forwarded message -- From: Yannick Torrès yannick.tor...@gmail.com Date: 10 June 2011 13:08 Subject: Re: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml To: rquadl...@gmail.com Cc: doc-...@lists.php.net Hi Richard, 2011/6/10 Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com On 10 June 2011 10:01, Yannick Torres yann...@php.net wrote: - link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link. + link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link). How stringent should we be regarding the use of single quotes for attributes? A quick check on phpdoc/en, and there are 359 linkend=' in 48 files out of the 11,351 searched. Compared to linkend= which come to 6,163 matches in 1,815 files. Obviously it isn't having an impact at the moment as the documentation is built just fine and the links work. But, considering whitespace issues are jumped on quite heavily, should other things be just as policed? I'm agree with you about the single quotes usages : event if there isn't an impact regardless the documentation build, we shoud use double quote for all of this. Perhaps we could add this into our best pratice ? Best, Yannick -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend : PHPDoc @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY : bit.ly/lFnVea
Re: [PHP-DOC] Fwd: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml
LOL. Took me a while to notice it was a forward. Looked like you were a first class schizophrenic On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:11, Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Yannick Torrès yannick.tor...@gmail.com Date: 10 June 2011 13:08 Subject: Re: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml To: rquadl...@gmail.com Cc: doc-...@lists.php.net Hi Richard, 2011/6/10 Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com On 10 June 2011 10:01, Yannick Torres yann...@php.net wrote: - link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link. + link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link). How stringent should we be regarding the use of single quotes for attributes? A quick check on phpdoc/en, and there are 359 linkend=' in 48 files out of the 11,351 searched. Compared to linkend= which come to 6,163 matches in 1,815 files. Obviously it isn't having an impact at the moment as the documentation is built just fine and the links work. But, considering whitespace issues are jumped on quite heavily, should other things be just as policed? I'm agree with you about the single quotes usages : event if there isn't an impact regardless the documentation build, we shoud use double quote for all of this. Perhaps we could add this into our best pratice ? Its an utterly useless change which just causes issues. If it finds its way to the 'best practice', people will start changing this all over the place, and commenting on it when people use single quotes. There is nothing to gain here. -Hannes
Re: [PHP-DOC] Fwd: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml
On 10 June 2011 13:47, Hannes Magnusson hannes.magnus...@gmail.com wrote: LOL. Took me a while to notice it was a forward. Looked like you were a first class schizophrenic On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:11, Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Yannick Torrès yannick.tor...@gmail.com Date: 10 June 2011 13:08 Subject: Re: [DOC-CVS] svn: /phpdoc/en/trunk/reference/sca/ examples.xml To: rquadl...@gmail.com Cc: doc-...@lists.php.net Hi Richard, 2011/6/10 Richard Quadling rquadl...@gmail.com On 10 June 2011 10:01, Yannick Torres yann...@php.net wrote: - link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link. + link linkend='ref.sdo'the SDO pages/link). How stringent should we be regarding the use of single quotes for attributes? A quick check on phpdoc/en, and there are 359 linkend=' in 48 files out of the 11,351 searched. Compared to linkend= which come to 6,163 matches in 1,815 files. Obviously it isn't having an impact at the moment as the documentation is built just fine and the links work. But, considering whitespace issues are jumped on quite heavily, should other things be just as policed? I'm agree with you about the single quotes usages : event if there isn't an impact regardless the documentation build, we shoud use double quote for all of this. Perhaps we could add this into our best pratice ? Its an utterly useless change which just causes issues. If it finds its way to the 'best practice', people will start changing this all over the place, and commenting on it when people use single quotes. There is nothing to gain here. -Hannes OK. -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend : PHPDoc @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY : bit.ly/lFnVea
[PHP-DOC] SVN Account Request: lyma
Submitting PHP Docs translations to brazilian portuguease.
RE: [PHP-DOC] Problems creating documentation
-Original Message- From: Philip Olson [mailto:phi...@roshambo.org] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 5:58 PM To: Jonathan Guerin Cc: phpdoc@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Problems creating documentation On Jun 9, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Guerin wrote: Hi everyone, We are currently trying to create the documentation for the SQLSRV and PDO_SQLSRV, but are running into a few problems. We are getting the following error: Philip, Thanks for these tips! Hello Jonathan, The reference.xml should have very little within it, yet this is referring to constants, requirements, inis, and others. Most (all?) content is being repeated in setup.xml so instead only use setup.xml for this information. Summary: Remove everything except sqlsrv.intro from reference.xml and it'll build. Perfect, build works great now! :) Unrelated and nitpicky, but please fix all whitespace before commit which means no tabs and use single spaced indention. We're strict and weird about whitespace. :) And ideally lines won't exceed 80 characters in length, although that's a loose requirement. I will endeavor to make sure that this is done. Regards, Philip Thanks again for your assistance! Jonathan
