On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 12:25 -0600, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
> 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

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

Reply via email to