Re: PHP Alternative syntax

> At 00:49 12-10-01, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > Jeroen, > > > > > > With all due respect, you do not deprecate *anything* that is not within > > > your own code without having a clear, beyond-an-*un*reasonable-doubt > > > understanding that the development team is behind this deprecation. > > > > > > A quick glance over my php-dev archive reveals not even a faint trace of a > > > discussion regarding this issue. The discussion you refer to is a > > > 1984-style history change. "The online manual says it's deprecated, so it > > > is." Great, but who the heck changed the online manual? You did. > > > >Okay, I'm sorry that I noted it was deprecated, while I wasn't 100% about > >it. But I really had read it on the mailinglist, that people were saying so. > > I'm not sure which mailing list that was, but at any rate, if you deprecate > something, especially a feature which is all the way down in the language > definition/syntax, you simply don't do it just like that (or at all). > > >I did assume people were following phpdoc commits, and since I didn't > >recieve any comments, I thought it was okay. I now know, and I aplogize once > >again, that no-comments definitely doesn't mean it's okay. There were quite > >a lot of old PHP3 things in the language section, including that false > >equals empty string, true doesn't exist and equals 1, etc etc. It was > >practically impossible to ask php-dev for everything, so I made logical > >assumptions every now and then. IMHO, the language section is quite > >improved, (though I'm still stuck in types, not further :-(... ) > > Please, don't document *anything* you're not 100.00% sure of about the core > language syntax without consulting php-dev. Mis-documentation is worse > than no documentation. I do read the source, though sparecely documented, both syntax and semantics can be derived quite well. Do take a look at language documentation, up until types.arrays (included), it was 'revisited', as I'd call it. > >The documentation is already fixed a few days ago. I don't know wether it's > >a good place for a 'rectification', but I think it's indeed a good idea to > >re-add the warning box, with a text in the lines of: > > > >"This alternative syntax is particulary useful in including large chuncs of > >html. Be carefull with nesting alternative syntax. For normal code, > >{}-syntax is probably more clear (and more usual)" > > I think the reassurance is quite necessary, considering the manual has (and > apparently, still does) this feature misdocumented. You could warn about Still does? Then the updating is broken again :-(, but xml is fixed anyway, so it's out of my control now. > mixing it with the other syntax. However, sentence #1 does not belong in > the box, and sentence #3 is your personal opinion and shouldn't be in the > docs at all... #3 -> "more common practice" is what I mean. Indeed, wether it's more clear is subjective... Try 2: "Be carefull with nesting alternative syntax, especially when nesting it with normal syntax. If in doubt, [about precedence I mean] maybe you'd be better of using {}. [Simply because it is unambigious]. In blocks of code, it is common practice to use {} in stead of alternative syntax, as is also the PEAR coding recommandation." Sentence #1 could be added somewhere else. But if you have other suggestion, please make them! It was just a quick try of myself for a suggestion... > I'm sorry if I sound angry, but it's probably because I kind-of am. We're > all human though... Fortunately yes :-) > > Zeev > >