Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25913 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49079 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Oct 2006 16:40:51 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49058 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2006 16:40:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2006 16:40:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net from 82.94.239.5 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [82.94.239.5] ([82.94.239.5:33216] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FB/38-59377-05322254 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:46:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k938k5IV016244; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:46:05 +0200 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:45:46 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Stanislav Malyshev cc: Sara Golemon , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <451D8BCC.1010507@zend.com> Message-ID: References: <03a49eb85c1b86038c5d127230bd3f78@gravitonic.com> <61923.208.195.234.254.1159463675.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <5F.60.15221.DAC6D154@pb1.pair.com> <451D8BCC.1010507@zend.com> X-Face: "L'&?Ah3MYF@FB4hU'XhNhLB]222(Lbr2Y@F:GE[OO;"F5p>qtFBl|yVVA&D{A(g3[C}mG:199P+5C'v.M/u@Z\![0b:Mv.[l6[uWl' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Per-request UG(unicode) From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > > Nooone is arguing that from the userspace side, having per-dir support for > > setting the unicode flag is a good thing. It is. The question is: Is it > > good enough to justify the soup that will become of the internal registries? > > I'm not sure there really would be a soup. Yes, there would be two copies of > persistent system hashes - namely, class table and function table - and > probably there would be a need to deal with other persistent tables like > module lists in couple of places - but besides that there should be not much > of a soup... But that is already bad enough anyway. So would be -1 on this as well. regards, Derick