You can do "retry" without "goto".
do {
try {
} catch (Exception $e) {
continue;
}
} while (0);
Both "goto" and "jump" names are good for me (not "break", not "continue').
However I don't see a lot of reason in "goto" and especially in limited
version
(even jumping forward may make mes
Marcus Boerger schrieb:
> i honestly wouldn't have execpted things like ';;' or '**' from you.
First of all: Read the first thread! Anything is accepted as wish.
It doesn't matter if it can be realized since we want to get to know
what people like.
My thoughts (disregarding technical possibiliti
Gah! I have to squint and count the colons in something like
System:::Socket:::Pair::open(). Yikes.
My vote is for \.
-Andrei
On Nov 27, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Oliver Grätz wrote:
Hi *!
I updated the table with the comments in the thread.
First of all: YES, these won't work as operator:
- "<-
>
> On 11/27/05, Sara Golemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Other possibilities:
> > ** Double-Star+2
> > ;;Double-Semicolon +2
> > >>> Reverse Heredoc Operator -1
> > ?? Double Question -1
> >
> > -Sara
>
> I think we should use a non breaking space ( \xA0 ) as the
> separator
On 11/27/05, Sara Golemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Other possibilities:
> ** Double-Star+2
> ;;Double-Semicolon +2
> >>> Reverse Heredoc Operator -1
> ?? Double Question -1
>
> -Sara
I think we should use a non breaking space ( \xA0 ) as the separator, after all
namespace class-
me 3.
goto is good.
Wez Furlong wrote:
me also
On 11/27/05, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version.
I agree wi
me also.
On 11/27/05, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
> > unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> Edin
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runti
Hello Sara,
Monday, November 28, 2005, 12:02:43 AM, you wrote:
>> Sara Golemon |-| | | +1 | | | | | |
>> | | | | | | | |
>>
> To flesh-out my overall vote:
> %% -2
> ( : ) {whitespace}":"{whitespace} -2
> ::: Shalosh Nekudotayim +
%% -2
( : ) {whitespace}":"{whitespace} +2
::: Shalosh Nekudotayim +1
\Backslash -2*10^100
\\ Double Backslash -2*10^100
** Double-Star-2
;;Double-Semicolon -2
--
Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
I totally agree with you Zeev, your concerns are justified and I appreciate
very much your concerns; they confirm PHP is not going to become yet another
language with tons of useless features. Nevertheless, my opinion is that
goto is not a complex language feature. It occurred to me quite a few tim
Sara Golemon |-| | | +1 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
To flesh-out my overall vote:
%% -2
( : ) {whitespace}":"{whitespace} -2
::: Shalosh Nekudotayim +2
::< Paamayim Nekudotayim-LessThan -1
:< Sad-Smiley -2
(<- ) "<-"{whites
I recall this being discussed before, but not what came of it: is there
a problem with just ignoring
The problem there becomes legacy support for:
And before you say "just watch for parens" there's also:
and a much more insiduous example:
no semicolon, no parens, no paamayim nekudotayim,
Hi *!
I updated the table with the comments in the thread.
First of all: YES, these won't work as operator:
- "<-" means "less than the negative value of"
- ":" collides with the ternary
BUT the discussion is not only about possibility but also about what you
would like. The ":" for example woul
Hartmut Holzgraefe schrieb:
> wouldn't that create an amiguity with
>
>T_LESS_THAN T_UNARY_MINUS
>
> like in
>
>if (SOME_CONSTANT<-SOME_OTHER_CONSTANT)
>
> so that we are back to the same problem we alread have with ':'?
Yes we do.
Congratulations, you are the 100th contributer statin
On Sunday 27 November 2005 21:55, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> I agree with this.
+1 from me too for waht it's worth.
It seems illogical to put a limit on jumping backwards just because someone
mihgt make messy code. People are perfectly capable of making messy code
regardless of what steps you mi
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:55:08 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edin Kadribasic) wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
> > unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version.
>
> I agree with this.
Same here
--Pierre
--
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version.
I agree with this.
Edin
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:54, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> We *can* screw it if we go in the wrong
> direction, and adding redundant features which
> are useful in rare cases and much more likely to
> be abused than to be properly used is a good step
> in that direction. A lot of people are saying w
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 22:32 +0100, Johannes Schlueter wrote:
> It isn't about the XML standard but about exceptions for the PHP parser and
> why should which all are used (hm, not sure about combination with PHP.
I recall this being discussed before, but not what came of it: is there
a problem
Hi,
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:20, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> First, PHP scripts are not XML files, so why are we concerned with what
> the XML standard says?
It isn't about the XML standard but about exceptions for the PHP parser and
why should Second, PHP is frequently used to output XML fi
Hi Marcus:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:58:16AM +0100, Marcus Boerger wrote:
>
> To second this, the xml standard allows any name after ' instruction. Widely in use is for example ' special treatment for java stuff in PHP? ;-)
First, PHP scripts are not XML files, so why are we concerned with wha
On 27.11.2005 21:50 Uhr, Rowan Lewis wrote:
> First off, forgive me if I'm using the wrong list.
>
> Anyhow, I've been developing a program that uses XML to store cache
> files, and I've noticed a highly painfully issue with the SimpleXML
> extension:
>
> It converts (and many other like valid
Hi Rowan,
the PHP5 XSL extension *does* support XHTML and HTML.
And yes, you should use a more general/help list for that kind of issues.
Rowan Lewis wrote:
First off, forgive me if I'm using the wrong list.
Anyhow, I've been developing a program that uses XML to store cache
files, and I've n
At 22:18 27/11/2005, Nicolas Bérard Nault wrote:
Goto exists in C. If you affirm that goto should
not exist in PHP because it gives the
opportunity to screw their code to programmers,
are you also affirming that C programmers are smarter than PHP programmers ?
I wouldn't make any statement re
First off, forgive me if I'm using the wrong list.
Anyhow, I've been developing a program that uses XML to store cache
files, and I've noticed a highly painfully issue with the SimpleXML
extension:
It converts (and many other like valid XML and
HTML elements) to (only valid XML).
This, for any
Goto exists in C. If you affirm that goto should not exist in PHP because it
gives the opportunity to screw their code to programmers, are you also
affirming that C programmers are smarter than PHP programmers ? Goto has had
a bad reputation for far too much time.
+1 for goto.
On 11/27/05, Zeev S
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for
unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version.
same here
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Senior Support Engineer.
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Ru
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Given that, I don't see the fact that this limitation is artificially
> imposed, implementation-wise, to have any significance at all, either
> way. The discussion should be on whether we should allow this
> functionality or not.
All I am trying to say is that there are not
At 20:03 27/11/2005, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:54, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Laughter has nothing to do with it.
>
> However, as discussed between those who attended the meeting in
> Paris, goto earned its bad connotations for a reason.
Goto got it's bad name from whe
Markus Fischer schrieb:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
>>The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
>>those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
>>constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
>>in the following case:
>>
>>define('fo
Hello Ilia,
as far as i know "do while" works pretty well. Just to be sure try this:
php -r 'do { echo "Hello\n"; } while (0); echo "World\n";'
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 5:06:39 PM, you wrote:
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> 1. A forward-jumping construct only, to avoid giving users too much
>> am
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:54, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Laughter has nothing to do with it.
>
> However, as discussed between those who attended the meeting in
> Paris, goto earned its bad connotations for a reason.
Goto got it's bad name from when it was used to jump to line numbers. I
ca
Hadn't thought about that one... Thank you for the comment.
I now think '\' is the best choice.
On 11/27/05, Lorenzo Alberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matt Friedman wrote:
> > Namespace <:: ClassName
> > or
> > Namespace <- ClassName
> > or
> > Namespace <: ClassName
> >
> > Unless I'm miss
Agreed; I use this style of coding a lot.
I'd prefer "goto" but can deal with it being called "jump".
--Wez.
On 11/27/05, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > 1. A forward-jumping construct only, to avoid giving users too much
> > ammo to shoot themselves in the
> Guys,
>
> Laughter has nothing to do with it.
>
> However, as discussed between those who attended the meeting
> in Paris, goto earned its bad connotations for a reason. It
> was agreed that providing a general-purpose C-goto equivalent
> is not a good idea because it *will* very quickly le
At 18:06 27/11/2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 1. A forward-jumping construct only, to avoid giving users too much
> ammo to shoot themselves in the foot with spaghetti coding.
One of the major uses of "jump" is the ability to "retry on error" by
jumping backwards inside the
Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
+1 for <- here. It makes namespace hierarchies resemble diagrams of the
same hierarchies (like inheritance in UML). It also visually makes
sense, isn't hard to type, and doesn't look like a smiley (like :> etc).
wouldn't that create an amiguity with
T_LESS_THAN T
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 1. A forward-jumping construct only, to avoid giving users too much
> ammo to shoot themselves in the foot with spaghetti coding.
One of the major uses of "jump" is the ability to "retry on error" by
jumping backwards inside the code. Given that the limit of the
functionalit
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'm not sold on reusing the break construct for that, since we're not
really breaking, and I kind of like Ilia's "jump" idea. Another
possibility would be reusing 'continue', which makes a bit more English
sense, even though it's not very similar
SC>>Changed that to Shalosh (as apparently the -ayim means "twice" (as in
SC>>PAAM=2, AYIM=twice, NEKUDOT=dot, AYIM=twice)).
PAAM actually means "once" :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
> Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
> (http://blog.phpdoc.info/archives/27-+1-for-Shaloshayim-Nekudotayim.html):
>
> T_SHALOSHAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM
Changed that to Shalosh (as apparently the -ayim means "twice" (as in
PAAM=2, AYIM=twice, NEKUDOT=dot, AYIM=twice)).
Not that I claim to know very much
Matt Friedman wrote:
Namespace <:: ClassName
or
Namespace <- ClassName
or
Namespace <: ClassName
Unless I'm missing something these symbols should not conflict with
other ones.
I'm not sure if someone already mentioned it,
but "<-" is not acceptable, since it means
"less than the opposite of"
mbneto wrote:
> Ilia,
>
> I do not agree with this. Since there should be only bugfixes in RC
> I should only test to see if the known problems are gone and there are
> no regressions. Check if the NEW classe/function clashes with mine's
> or PEAR's not!
Some bug fixes may cause regressions in
Ilia,
I do not agree with this. Since there should be only bugfixes in RC
I should only test to see if the known problems are gone and there are
no regressions. Check if the NEW classe/function clashes with mine's
or PEAR's not!
> > You cannot expect folks to re-test everything with every ne
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I'd prefer ::: over \ for a namespace operator, even though it is
bordering on the "too-long" limit.
Well, how often you think it's used in a script?
If there will be namespaces, I'd prefer ::: too.
--Jani
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runti
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'm not sold on reusing the break construct for that, since we're not really
breaking, and I kind of like Ilia's "jump" idea. Another possibility would be
reusing 'continue', which makes a bit more English sense, even though it's not
very similar to co
Guys,
Laughter has nothing to do with it.
However, as discussed between those who attended the meeting in
Paris, goto earned its bad connotations for a reason. It was agreed
that providing a general-purpose C-goto equivalent is not a good idea
because it *will* very quickly lead to spaghetti
Kevin Brown wrote:
The only scripts that would break (far from "trillions") here would be
those where you had a space-less ternary statement comparing two
constants (NOT namespace constants -- they don't even exist yet), as
in the following case:
define('foo','odd');
define('bar','even');
$var =
Hello Jacques,
can we name it T_WTF_COLON
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 12:05:19 PM, you wrote:
> Sara Golemon wrote:
>> For the record, I vote for :::
>> T_??_NEKUDOTAYIM
>> (Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
>>
> Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
> (http://blog.phpdoc
Sara Golemon wrote:
> For the record, I vote for :::
> T_מְשֻׁלָּשׁ_NEKUDOTAYIM
> (Sorry, couldn't find a transliteration of "triple")
>
Sean reckons that it's Shaloshayim
(http://blog.phpdoc.info/archives/27-+1-for-Shaloshayim-Nekudotayim.html):
T_SHALOSHAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM
Regards
--jm
> -Sara
>
>
Oliver Grätz wrote:
> OK, you requested for it! *g*
>
> OLLi
>
>
>
>
> Namespace Operators
>
> Name
Hello Sara,
Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:39:40 AM, you wrote:
>> How PHP chokes on > silly. There's a patch here to fix it,
>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/18493, some proof of why it's a problem,
>> http://news.php.net/php.internals/18496, and the "bogus" (yeah, right) bug
>> report, http:
Mike Robinson wrote:
> They all look horrible.
> The idea of namespaces scrapped altogether is a good solution. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Mike Robinson
>
Namespaces would be quite useful when using PEAR classes and custom
classes where you require certain functionality from say a PEAR::Date
and Derick's
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The attached patch is a possible solution to the date *crisis*, it
renames the class to PhpDate to avoid any namespace conflicts with pear
or custom user classes called date.
I do not think it makes sense for PHP to start prefixing internal
classes with PHP. We just nee
ben zie wrote:
> i want to get ext/oracle
>
Hi Ben,
You do not require a CVS account to "get" ext/oracle.
Take a look at http://www.php.net/anoncvs.php for getting the latest PHP
source code.
Regards
--jm
--
Jacques Marneweck
http://www.powertrip.co.za/blog/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
MCK>>The -> suggestion if practicable seems the most intuitively correct
MCK>>to me.
Yes, with one exception that this already has a meaning and it has nothing
to do with namespaces.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
-
Wez Furlong wrote:
Agreed, the PECL bundle is still very useful to maintain for each release.
(as is the debug pack, so that debugging crashes becomes a possibility
for releases).
Shouldnt we then fast track the binary support in the PEAR installer?
It should be enough to commit all your code,
57 matches
Mail list logo
