Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49208 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53136 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2010 22:28:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Aug 2010 22:28:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:50778] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 56/59-30659-22B3B5C4 for ; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:28:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 94C7F5826A; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:28:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: from [10.8.11.37] (unknown [74.85.23.220]) (Authenticated sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com) by smtp5.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTPSA id 25D37583FE; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 18:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C5B3B1F.9090905@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:28:47 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralph Schindler CC: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9oYW5uZXMgU2NobMO8dGVy?= , Etienne Kneuss , internals Mailing List References: <1272386738.870.32.camel@guybrush> <4C599C17.5050505@smashlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <4C599C17.5050505@smashlabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ArrayAccess::offsetGet not returning a ref From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I'd opt for option (d) for all prototype/signature checking. Here's why: I think relaxing the check may make sense. Do you have some code example that doesn't work and you want it to work? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227