Clarify the syntax and role of arguments for echo and print #469
Conversation
|
The method synopsis at the top of both pages will still display with parentheses. Ideally, we'd use a different DocBook markup to give synopses for non-function constructs like this. |
reference/strings/functions/echo.xml
Outdated
| <function>echo</function> regards the precedence of the period operator in | ||
| <literal>echo</literal> regards the precedence of the period operator in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this still accurate as of PHP 8? Precedence of . was changed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch, the + example now does the right thing, but the ternary still needs the parentheses: https://3v4l.org/Rgp73
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes good point about the ternary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated. I've left the addition example in, because there's still plenty of people running 7.x. I have removed a reference to pre-5.4 behaviour elsewhere, though.
- Rather than implying that parentheses are optional, make clear that they are never part of the syntax for these keywords. - Don't spend so many examples on different types of string. - Do include examples of non-string arguments. - Add a note with additional examples of how parentheses interact. - Don't refer to either construct as "function-like", instead use the term "expression" consistently. - Additional tidying to make the pages more consistent with each other. - Add "print" to the list of language constructs which are documented as functions. - Remove mention of what PHP versions below 5.4 did with short echo tags.
IMSoP
force-pushed
the
no-parens-in-echo-print
branch
from
db4781b to
0223029
Compare
|
Very good PR! Thank you!
ACK. Maybe adding a "role" attribute and supporting this in PhD might be a viable solution. Generally, I am more concerned regarding the constrol structures documentation which is super informal. Given that https://github.com/php/php-langspec is abandoned, it would be good to have a formal grammar specification in the manual. Apparently, DocBook 4.5 supports EBNF, so one may dream. :) |
|
Applied as ede9d20. |
3 participants
(Inspired by this Stack Overflow question.)