On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 12:25 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > 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 Well, I certainly don't have a problem with $className::$staticMember. But then, we ween't talking about that, were we! :) > 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! I find it succinct for short evaluations... such as getting a $_GET entry whether it exists or not. 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
