Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:31620 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46718 invoked by uid 1010); 16 Aug 2007 08:35:05 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46699 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2007 08:35:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Aug 2007 08:35:04 -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=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.94.239.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.94.239.5] ([82.94.239.5:40441] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/00-46113-71C04C64 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:34:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7G8XHfq026971; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:33:17 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:33:17 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: derick@kossu.ez.no To: Gwynne Raskind cc: Christopher Jones , PHP Developers Mailing List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3B3E836C-A029-4877-97EB-D935E5853C9A@wanderingknights.org> <46C33F52.6040202@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Nowdocs revised From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Gwynne Raskind wrote: > I didn't get any further, no :(. The decision of whether to merge the nowdocs > patch is out of my hands now, since I don't have source karma. However, since > the main thing standing in the way of its implementation was concern over the > usefulness, your comment is very helpful, and I'd like to open the topic for > discussion again on the list, if no one out there has any objection :) I don't see why this can not go into 5.3 once that branch is open. It seems pretty useful to me. regards, Derick