Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:115638 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 54318 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2021 07:59:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2021 07:59:25 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6AD1804D4 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 01:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com [209.85.166.52]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 01:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id d22so10240044ioy.11 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:28:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5n2DE+X2IECQNk7yE+L+8otIU97tqQJvpDfbKxQGHGw=; b=INKNmq6XCP8uJsn/zJ93L2n+a5WQ7oJfZWWrXlLgoPNq7iW+BnPpbcbGN8GGJ9yzKH 1UHf4rLzPD1UyAbsdfJOsBUUrYYO8ZbM4OX28JWqRh7FX+eAhHvq2N0HqW3qwasOIgjt 5jmkbkIJB/0lZsQJUusJakGeAEiOVlt4+kfxdZXMZAqMsVgvJayiQQFYRa8RuQX5zO3N Wqc2H5jdbv2gu0WhiVqlQo9QgJME8fBI/lnvBMYWtj9xWW6vKiKpb5hIWkMz7QLDyhot FDQnG4K4yjQUwcbY/MUG2AKs8U/FMpSHOtlPPGjZmDfPaFQn6nB5pzg78rU1cY+kEP+N aq4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5n2DE+X2IECQNk7yE+L+8otIU97tqQJvpDfbKxQGHGw=; b=sWPRRNN34s6ZBST8RKgC1+/kkkaD0yal+Jzps9j0MyH6cwXqMDR66/W0i/ntn/7TR6 f4HlF18nFMxKx3ex4X7hn1jOk1CrNPu2isaPzzYTB2ZeQPov9DqrMgJ+RIBWxN9lHlOO IIptNIVMGVDk6lxRUPqI5h16VwYXxt+j8hEpfmEsFmzY2q3Z6sw2A/9cN1hZLd6bZDOu VflaMhvV34VIlB+r8HEx/NbaVwgG+5x3t7kOROioVHNpV3uqWiMLXkawG8aGfKJLzABe 6Wzznbxjlduzm+M1YWtbXd9Uit2ogyhUOV4PLIt+tbZFV6k5ej/vOnLkuyMTn3W++xON oYwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IfIApOz8al7mAWcrsJLHU7aHXrKgJih1BsDgzM9HOTC285FNc v6Hk6xqv/cQjE8KTqgRbOeni4oSZNUg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4cnbt5Rw6ClDsROAFMheH7fs00eT/Q7m/CRGdwoE0YxOL8iNMnIM2S1Gyce9g1d1yT9h3Sg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:e92:: with SMTP id p18mr8662553jas.57.1628238528572; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (mail-io1-f47.google.com. [209.85.166.47]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r8sm5005367iov.39.2021.08.06.01.28.47 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id n19so10348129ioz.0 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:28:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a5e:a818:: with SMTP id c24mr791929ioa.180.1628238527830; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 01:28:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 09:28:11 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: ignace nyamagana butera Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000fb4b605c8dfd370" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Add parse_query_string as an alternative to parse_str From: phpmailinglists@gmail.com (Peter Bowyer) --0000000000000fb4b605c8dfd370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 08:18, ignace nyamagana butera wrote: > I read your RFC and I understand the intent in improving the current > parse_str function behaviour by introducing a new function to > avoid possible breakage, > However I feel that we are missing a chance to also improve how parse_str > algorithm is currently used, we could or should (?) use this opportunity > to fix some long shortcomings around parse_str. > > In no particular order: > I agree that the first 2 shortcomings ought to be addressed in a HTTP-focused parse_str alternative. The first has been an annoyance, as some querystrings use '.' to denote an array, in the way PHP chooses []. So foo.bar would mean foo[bar] in PHP-speak. The third I won't comment on as I don't know the Url algorithm. Peter --0000000000000fb4b605c8dfd370--