Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:42612 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55514 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 22:17:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 22:17:39 -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] ([85.214.94.56:39381] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C1/66-25553-2031D694 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:17:38 -0500 Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (236-74.106-92.cust.bluewin.ch [92.106.74.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4EF11EFD5; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:17:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:14:45 +0100 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1869626923.20090113231445@marcus-boerger.de> To: Stanislav Malyshev CC: Lukas Kahwe Smith , PHP internals In-Reply-To: <496BC207.5000202@zend.com> References: <1112172038.20090112222233@marcus-boerger.de> <1567641978.20090112230428@marcus-boerger.de> <496BC207.5000202@zend.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] status update for beta1 From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) Hello Stanislav, Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:19:51 PM, you wrote: > Hi! >> it appears Dmitry and Stas are against that, so I let it for you to >> decide whetehr you want me to drop all of it or continue workig on it >> to make all I can ready for 5.3.0. > I'm not precisely against it because I'm not even sure what "it" is. Is > there a RFC/proposal somewhere that describes in detail what is proposed > to be done - i.e. what is the delta to the original closures RFC? Unless > I missed something (which certainly could be what is happening, > especially given I was on vacation for some time and may have missed > something when I was catching up) there is some substantive change to > closures which is not obvious and changes how they work and we don't > understand it sufficiently. I wrote a mail to internals@ explaining the details. Unfortunately my mailer stalled and it only got through just now. Best regards, Marcus