I think we should not follow this discussion on internals@ and instead
we should have a subcommittee to study whether or not the word need
was appropriate in the context of the substring operator, or whether
in fact, "would be nice to have, but might be able to continue living"
would've been a more appropriate form of expression.
-Sterling
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:29:46 +0200 (CEST), Derick Rethans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I also thought the word "need" is a bit strong :) It's more like
> > "syntactic sugar which is nice-to-have"
>
> As I just told Ilia on IRC, I think we should not add this (now) for a
> couple of reasons:
>
> - Adding new language constructs in mini releases is IMO not the way to
> go as it will make it possible impossible to run script that use this
> new construct not even parse on PHP 5.0.x servers. Adding normal new
> functions does not have this problem of course, as those scripts are
> still parsable.
> - Substring works just fine, adding this for performance reasons is IMO
> invalid.
> - People might want to take this even further and request {1,3}, {-3,2}
> and the like. (This was expressed in the past when talking about this
> stuff)
>
> regards,
>
>
> Derick
>
> --
> Derick Rethans
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
