Hi Andre,
At 16:59 7/15/2001, André Langhorst wrote the following:
--
>>Yes, I think that for strings we should limit it to ranges
>>like $foo{4..6}, and it would be neat if we for arrays could
>>do $foo[4..6]. ":" might be just as well
> Yes, I think that for strings we should limit it to ranges
> like $foo{4..6}, and it would be neat if we for arrays could
> do $foo[4..6]. ":" might be just as well as "..". It is more
> intuitive with ".." I think, but I also kind of like having a
> single character.
4:6 is more of a soccer r
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:13:04AM +0200, Cynic wrote:
> As for the Andre's suggestions, I like Python's ranges in both
> lists and strings (they use colon instead of two dots). I
> some details of it unintuitive, but don't remember what it was
> exactly as it's been some time since I touched P
Hi there,
excuse my ignorance, but could someone provide me w/ some
hints as to the origin of this thread? I must've missed it
(just returned from vacation). Since I haven't seen prior
messages in this/related thread(s), I might be off base here.
Sorry if this is the case.
Now, some time ago (
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:04:42PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> I've said it before, but I *really* am convinced now, that we should:
>
> - At least allow $str{index} (while _deprecating_ the array $str[ ] indices)
> - _possibly_ also allowing $str{start..end}
> - and if the above is all
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Str enhancement, final run
> I've said it before, but I *really* am convinced now, that we should:
>
> - At least allow $str{index} (whil
I've said it before, but I *really* am convinced now, that we should:
- At least allow $str{index} (while _deprecating_ the array $str[ ] indices)
- _possibly_ also allowing $str{start..end}
- and if the above is allowed, then I think you should also allow
$str{..end} and $str{start..}
But *noth
> I think we should not allow this, use substr() if you need more
> functionality. Stick to very simple things with the {} stuff.
ah hell, I think Andi not even thought at using substr() within {}.
then my argumentation is something like void ;)
these examples were meant perlish and will do harm
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, André Langhorst wrote:
> nah, you know waiting turns developers into killer-machines ;)
>
> something more to think about...
>
> $foo{${a$i}}
> $foo{$i++..$i}
> $foo{($moo ? $zoo:$boo)..$roo}
> $foo{super_function($moo)..substr($doh::zoo)-4}
>
> I state that is better to simp
> I still think that people who need more complicated stuff can use
> substr(). But I know many don't agree with me so I prefer to wait a
> while with the discussion until we start advancing a bit in the Engine 2
nah, you know waiting turns developers into killer-machines ;)
something more t
At 06:00 PM 7/10/2001 +0200, André Langhorst wrote:
>As it were Andi's last words, is it the finial decison now just to
>implement $foo{x} to retrieve a single char?
>I'm asking this again, because it will be irreversible because it is not
>compatible with substr($foo,x) == $foo{x}!!!
>And as I
11 matches
Mail list logo
