On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Nick Stinemates <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:19:58PM -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > > 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 >:), that it caters to the messy, "I wish > > I REALLY knew what I was doing", slovenly crowd. > > > > Just because a feature exists, doesn't mean you should use it! > > > > Cheers, > > Rob. > > -- > > http://www.interjinn.com > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > Agree, and couldn't imagine working with someones code where they > liberally use these types of lazy things. I like structured, ordered > code, and, somehow, using something like this technique doesn't seem > structured or ordered. to each his own; as i said personally, i consider those *more* structured than the concatenation operator, when they work ;) but anyway, i got lured into the argument for parsing variables and function calls in double quotes. i have been arguing for the $className::$staticMember feature which i piggybacked into this conversation because of a lack of response on a previous post from this week. and just to pour gas on the fire, if you guys want to know a syntactic sugar feature i avoid like the plague, its the ternary operator! -nathan
