Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:26621 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6466 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Nov 2006 20:37:53 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6451 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2006 20:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Nov 2006 20:37:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; 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] ([82.94.239.5:43227] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DD/F6-53553-0AA7B554 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:37:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAFKbWIe022564; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:37:33 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:36:44 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Richard Lynch cc: Sara Golemon , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <61935.208.195.234.246.1163621867.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> Message-ID: References: <016901c707e3$08aaa440$0201a8c0@pc1> <28.46.24214.5603A554@pb1.pair.com> <61935.208.195.234.246.1163621867.squirrel@www.l-i-e.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] Binary strings from 6 in 5.2? From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Richard Lynch wrote: > I didn't even read the patch, but unless it's guaranteed NOT to break > anything at all in php4 (yes, 4, not 5): > -1 It's guaranteed not to break anything, as the syntax currently just throws a parse error for this stuff. Derick