Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34752 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47161 invoked by uid 1010); 11 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47143 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:33347] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 39/C6-04761-D05E7874 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:52:15 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.34] (ppp85-140-253-212.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [85.140.253.212]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A976401E6; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:52:11 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <4787E50A.1000108@daylessday.org> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:52:10 +0300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Barrow CC: Stanislav Malyshev , internals@lists.php.net References: <1200066425.7376.9.camel@johannes.nop> <1200075842.16083.44.camel@johannes.nop> <1200077257.12559.7.camel@sbarrow-desktop> <4787BE7C.6080205@zend.com> <1200078780.12559.14.camel@sbarrow-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1200078780.12559.14.camel@sbarrow-desktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SUMMARY: Array syntax From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 11.01.2008 22:13, Sam Barrow wrote: >> input from many people is great, moreover - it is necessary. However, it >> is not the same as deciding by arithmetical majority of votes of whoever >> cares to vote on technical questions. > > Which is a valid point in most cases, but this is not technical, it's > purely syntactic. Surely it's technical, doesn't matter what exactly it's supposed to affect - its syntax or its functionality. > If we were voting on implementing a highly advanced technical feature > then yes, people who know what they're talking about should be given > more weight, but in this case I don't think so. You're not going to fix bug reports related to the parser, or are you? -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal