On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:29 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:11 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:55 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > bah; concatenation operator - schmacatatenation operator! i dont > > really > > > > > care about that; but i would like to see support for $a::$someStatic > > come > > > > > back. thats what im whining about ;) > > > > > > > > That funny part, IMHO, is that on internals they often complain about > > > > new features not being simple enough for the supposed mentally > > incapable > > > > masses. And yet there's support for this kind of double quoting stuff > > > > that just makes me think poor form, bad style, and where's my t-shirt. > > > > > > > > > are you saying this feature is too esoteric for you ? :) > > > > No, it's too, hmmm... what's the word... REDUNDANT! > > > > :) > > > > actually, its a little cleaner if you ask me. infact i think being able to > delimit strings in either single or double quotes was a precursor to this. > example: java; if i want to have double quotes in a string i *have* to > escape them w/in the string \". in php or javascript; i simply delimit the > string w/ single quotes. this feature is simply an evolution of that > concept, IMHO. Oh, I greatly see the utility in having support for both single and double quoted strings. I just don't see the utility in supporting "everything under the sun" expansion within double quotes. > > besides i didnt create the double quoted support and thats not even what > im > > arguing about anyway. the syntax ive mentioned was there in a pre-5.2.4 > > release (discovered it didnt actually make the cut for the 5.2.4) it save > > you from having to write ugly little helper methods and thats a benefit i > > wouldnt mind having. > > There's a reason they call it "pre-release". It means it's not > > "final" ;) > > > > what the world needs is a term for the 'pre-release' being cooler than the > release ;) > > > php has a great dilema, it wants to cater to a wide range of users; from > > newbs to experts. thats a massive undertaking and well if youre gonna do > > it, you may as well go whole-hog IMHO. > > I don't see how the throwing everything and the kitchen sink into double > > quotes support caters to either of these groups. It strikes me, and of > > course that's who matters here >:), > > i matter more !:D > > > that it caters to the messy, "I wish > > I REALLY knew what I was doing", slovenly crowd. > > if you dont know about the concatenation operator my thought is you wont be > going far w/ php or any other language for that matter :) > > Just because a feature exists, doesn't mean you should use it! > > > > here we are back at the classic syntactic sugar argument. at least weve > moved past abstract classes and interfaces ! > > good times :D Funny you should mention that, I was going to add a reference to interfaces and abstract classes when I mentioned that ;) Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
