PHP Error of the Day

[haggholm]

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM, expecting '}' in /var/www/htdocs/webeval/erez/classes/assignment/assignmentSQLgen.php on line 251

According to Wikipedia,

Paamayim Nekudotayim (פעמיים נקודתיים pronounced [paʔamajim nəkudotajim]) is a name for the Scope Resolution Operator (::) in PHP. It means "twice colon" or "double colon" in Hebrew.

Nekudotayim (נקודתיים) means 'colon'; it comes from nekuda (IPA: [nəkuda]), 'point' or 'dot', and the dual suffix ayim (יים-), hence 'two points'. Similarly, the word paamayim (פעמיים) is derived by attaching the dual suffix to paam (IPA: [paʔam]) ('one time' or 'once'), thus yielding 'twice'.

The name was introduced in the Israeli-developed Zend Engine 0.5 used in PHP 3. Although it has been confusing to many developers, it is still being used in PHP 5.

…Of course.

Comments

[wished4this.livejournal.com]

uh... huh.

[hackd.net (from livejournal.com)]

Saw that a while back myself. Didn't even try to understand it, just looked at the line number and figured out the error. I think that kind of message is to be expected from geeks (even if it seems to be there for legacy reasons). At least it isn't some bizarre reference to obscure Star Wars non-canon literature...

*goes to modify code comments and use SW references*

Sharing a link

[(Anonymous)]

Don't judge me too harshly for putting this as a comment to an unrelated post. Reading this immediately made me think of you and your consistent appeal to rational thought and logic. The post is about the ideas of rational ignorance and rational irrationality, the post relates the ideas to veganism, that aside, you should at least be interested in the ideas and the related information and links there.

http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/03/rational-ignorance-and-rational.html

Maybe you've already encountered these concepts...

Re: Sharing a link

[petter-haggholm.livejournal.com]

No, I find it interesting. I do think that he should have explicitly included premises: Ultimately, the premise that it is moral to extend altruism based on presumed ability to suffer is as arbitrary as the premise that it is moral to extend altruism based on species identity. (Arguably it is more arbitrary in that we are evolutionarily preconditioned to intraspecific loyalty, but that’s not a valid argument that it is therefore more moral.) That said, I do lean somewhat in the former direction (with aspects of the latter), though it’s fairly clear that you and I have very different beliefs and opinions in the quantitative questions of where the lines should be drawn.

I’m kind of curious, though: Do you believe that humans and non-human animals are morally equivalent (in the sense of rights morally afforded, not requirements as moral agents)? If so, how do you justify the difference in your attitude and behaviour toward murderers (of other humans) and those who kill animals—between cannibals and (non-cannibal) non-vegetarians? If not, what are your criteria for moral distinction? Why are you willing to have civilised conversations with those who kill, or condone the killing of cows, but not those who kill, or condone the killing of people? (Or are you?)

Of course, I may be asking this question to thin air since I’ve no idea whether you go back and check responses to comments left days ago (does LJ notify anonymous commenters?). In any case, I didn’t take so long because I’m lazy, but because I genuinely think that these ideas are best digested before they are responded to.