On Wed, 28 May 2008, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Yes, as an *indexing* mechanism for strings and arrays - that is different from a construct of actually defining it. They are two different things.

There is one difference though. The NOWDOC construct allows actually something *new*, whereas [ ] would just be an *alternative* for something can already do.

I'd have less issues with adding [] as the array() syntax if it was something that PHP didn't support yet. But we're 12 years down the road now and since arrays were introduced we've always used array(). I realize that there are now other languages that favor this construct, but I don't see why we should then add it as the *exact* same thing as an already existing construct.

I'd be greatly disapointed if a construct would make it into PHP. I think it's the wrong way to go by adding cryptic constructs for something that we've already syntax for. Really, adding 5 more chars doesn't make any difference, and using the full "array()" increases readability as it's an explicit statement. Besides the mantra that you mention, there is another one that we shouldn't keep out of the picture either: PHP is suppose to be easy to pick up, and use, and so far we've done that by requiring explicit names for constructs (with the few exceptions of course). This is why we use array(), $ in front of vars, and preg_match over =~.

regards, Derick