Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39694 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49577 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2008 11:13:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Aug 2008 11:13:12 -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] ([85.214.94.56:51728] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5A/21-41960-74789984 for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:13:11 -0400 Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (unknown [193.142.125.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9675D11EFBF; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:13:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:12:36 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <511362913.20080806131236@marcus-boerger.de> To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: Moriyoshi Koizumi , Larry Garfield , In-Reply-To: <489939C5.2090007@zend.com> References: <909776579.20080803142659@marcus-boerger.de> <4896EA3C.6010203@zend.com> <4897E9B5.9020006@at.wakwak.com> <200808052035.12199.larry@garfieldtech.com> <489908C2.9040200@at.wakwak.com> <489939C5.2090007@zend.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Inconsistencies in 5.3 From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Stanislav, Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 7:42:29 AM, you wrote: > Hi! >> function ($arg) { use $a, &$b; > Note that neither static not global allow & inside definitions, so from > "consistency" point of view it doesn't work. I do not see an argument in complaining about extending a scheme. But I see the other solution, use in front of the body, as an introduction of a brand new scheme. Obviously one is very inconsistent. And besides, global could simply ignore '&' as that would have no meaning there at all. Best regards, Marcus