On Oct 30 19:44:08, Peter Lind wrote: > On 30 October 2010 19:18, Chad Emrys <ad...@codeangel.org> wrote: > > On 10/30/2010 11:58 AM, Daniel P. Brown wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:47, Chad Emrys<ad...@codeangel.org> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It's not that I'm that sure of myself, it's that I believe that my > >>> opinion > >>> has merit, and I keep seeing the exact same argument over and over again > >>> that I believe is not a very good argument (They can just google it > >>> thing). > >>> Some other people have provided other arguments as well and those are > >>> more > >>> valued. (Though I don't think they are strong enough reasons yet NOT to > >>> do > >>> it). > >>> > >> > >> It does have merit --- to you, and perhaps a few others. > >> Hopefully without sounding like I'm ridiculing you (it's not my > >> intent), have you seriously considered this at all, and are you > >> realizing that it's just not going to happen at this time? I mean, if > >> you submitted a request or implementation proposal for an INI-based > >> option to switch between token strings and expanded help messages, > >> that would likely receive more serious attention than the dismissive > >> responses and formed opinions of your own insight as based upon this > >> discussion. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Forking won't fix this particular problem. > >>> > >> > >> Well, if your statement about how no one here who disagrees with > >> you does "enough support" (which is, quite frankly, an asinine > >> assessment), then an equal rebuttal will be that you do not know > >> enough about the inner workings of the software you claim to support, > >> nor the culture of the group who maintains it. > >> > >> You're taking a minor annoyance and trying to convince the masses > >> - and indeed the "powers that be" - that it is tantamount to Y2K38. > >> Again, I'm really not trying to insult you or your original opinion > >> here, Chad, but the continued arguments are almost coming off as silly > >> now. > >> > >> > > > > If you haven't noticed, I am a bit stubborn, yes it's a problem. When I > > submitted this proposal, I have to at least try to plant a bug in their > > brain that perhaps, they are being to hasty on dismissing this argument. > > True, I do not know a lot about this particular culture that maintains PHP. > > I just know the bigger culture of those who use PHP, and some of them are > > quite annoyed by the dismissive nature of the maintainers who are quite at > > odds to what the majority of the community want or needs. And I am sort of > > glad to annoy those who are overly dismissive, and hopefully ploy the one's > > who are on the fence. > > > > No one said I was good at politics. But the fact one has to play the > > politics game here to get anything worth while doesn't really phase me. > > > > Now I am starting to find this argument straying from the point. I don't > > believe attacking me personally or me attacking the nature of this mailing > > list really has to do with the subject line. > > > > Why not throw your weight behind http://wiki.php.net/rfc/lemon ? Seems > to me that might get a lot more traction.
lemon would indeed get rid of actual "names" for such tokens, and would rather display "unnexpected ::". The problem with lemon is that it turns out to still be a tad bit slower than yacc, with some complications on the grammar side (the compiler helper functions were made for yacc). So unless there is a major speedup breakthrough, it won't happen in a near future, sadly. > > Regards > Peter > > -- > <hype> > WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk > LinkedIn: plind > BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 > Twitter: kafe15 > </hype> > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
