Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39728 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28551 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2008 09:55:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Aug 2008 09:55:32 -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] ([85.214.94.56:58528] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1B/F4-29324-296CA984 for ; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:55:32 -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 5313611DB43; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:54:54 +0200 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <461018066.20080807115454@marcus-boerger.de> To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: Moriyoshi Koizumi , Larry Garfield , In-Reply-To: <4899D488.2010803@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> <4899B449.4010800@at.wakwak.com> <4899D488.2010803@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, 6:42:48 PM, you wrote: > Hi! >> What a nitpicking :) So would I say that the global statement is >> inconsistent with static because it doesn't allow assignments within the >> statement :p > Sure it is. That's just another thing to show all this "consistency" > talk is blown way out of proportion long ago. Now let's make global > accept assignments and ignore them for "consistency", should we? So what is your point here? You say we failed a few times to be consistent in the past, so today we should do everything to prevent anything that looks like consistency? Do you read what you write? Best regards, Marcus