Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34754 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71438 invoked by uid 1010); 11 Jan 2008 22:35:31 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 71423 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2008 22:35:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2008 22:35:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; 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] ([89.208.40.236:38323] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 49/3B-04761-23FE7874 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:35:30 -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 BEBC66401E6; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:35:28 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <4787EF30.8000306@daylessday.org> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:35:28 +0300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre CC: Sam Barrow , 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> <4787E50A.1000108@daylessday.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SUMMARY: Array syntax From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 12.01.2008 01:08, Pierre wrote: >> > 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? > > Neither I will (or if it is an easy one :). This doesn't mean the issue is purely syntactical and everyone may decide whether it should be implemented or not. People who are going to take care of it and maintain the related code (I do not mean myself) definitely should have more weight in such case. > Please let move on the right side. It is getting ridiculous to hear > this kind of answers. Opinions matter, that's how we evolve. Whether > the authors have provided patches or not is irrelevant /for me/. Well, to me it matters whether the author is going to care of the thing he's proposing or he's going to disappear right after it's implemented. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal