Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39336 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49859 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2008 19:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2008 19:12:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:39971] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C7/36-22699-EA52A884 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:12:46 -0400 Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH (ip131.fa1-0-1.occ.iinet.com [198.145.32.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A974A11F00D; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:12:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:12:36 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <967738238.20080725211236@marcus-boerger.de> To: Christian Seiler CC: php-dev List In-Reply-To: <488A22F9.2070409@gmx.net> References: <48886651.80407@gmx.net> <4889F43D.8030609@gmx.net> <1016246995.20080725205642@marcus-boerger.de> <488A22F9.2070409@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Closures and reflection improvements From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Christian, Friday, July 25, 2008, 9:01:13 PM, you wrote: > Hi Marcus, >> patch looks fine and should go in. > Thanks. >> >> do you think ReflectionMethod::__construct implementation could be done >> using parameterparsing 'f' rather than the spcial case 'o'? > The Problem with 'f' is that it will accept every callback, even normal > functions, so that would kind of break the idea of having > ReflectionMethod different than ReflectionFunction. > So in my eyes, using 'o' for now is the sanest approach. I see. So if we ever want to fix it we need 'm' for method then :-) Best regards, Marcus