Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38704 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98261 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2008 17:38:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jul 2008 17:38:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=chris_se@gmx.net; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=chris_se@gmx.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.net designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: chris_se@gmx.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 213.165.64.20 mail.gmx.net Received: from [213.165.64.20] ([213.165.64.20:40850] helo=mail.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 94/09-37564-EFCBB684 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:38:07 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Jul 2008 17:38:03 -0000 Received: from p54A16BBD.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO chris-se.dyndns.org) [84.161.107.189] by mail.gmx.net (mp068) with SMTP; 02 Jul 2008 19:38:03 +0200 X-Authenticated: #186999 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+IRGJpVhmIwLx+s3hEWoxm7kr30sLej9XIF00YcV NzqEIOvp/X5+I2 Received: from [192.168.0.175] (HSI-KBW-091-089-005-213.hsi2.kabelbw.de [91.89.5.213]) by chris-se.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796D3193F5; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 19:19:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <486BBCBC.3010800@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:37:00 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: php-dev List References: <486B6960.4030705@gmx.net> <486BBB1D.8050300@zend.com> In-Reply-To: <486BBB1D.8050300@zend.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.71 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Closures: updated proposal and patch From: chris_se@gmx.net (Christian Seiler) Hi Stanislav, > Or did you just mean $example->setSearch() and I'm worried about > nothing? :) Yes, absolutely, Sorry for the confusion caused. ;-) I fixed that in the Wiki. > In this case, I'd just propose to have getThis() anyway. I don't see a need, but I'm not against it. Should be extremely trivial to implement. Regards, Christian