On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Nick Stinemates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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

Reply via email to