Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49848 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86507 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2010 14:16:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Oct 2010 14:16:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.211.66 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.211.66 unknown Solaris 10 (beta) Received: from [217.114.211.66] ([217.114.211.66:33252] helo=config.schlueters.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2D/C4-52683-92098AC4 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:16:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.31] (ppp-93-104-61-73.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.61.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by config.schlueters.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A513F44537; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:16:06 +0200 (CEST) To: Adam Harvey Cc: PHP internals In-Reply-To: References: <1285856641.16846.92.camel@guybrush> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:16:05 +0200 Message-ID: <1286115365.2606.302.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Comparable interface From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 22:57 +0800, Adam Harvey wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Johannes Schlüter wrote: > >> What is this "more interesting stuff to come"? > > Nothing that's likely to be ready before the forthcoming release > cycle. I really did just want the RFC writing practice, since I > haven't done one within PHP's structure before. :) I take this answer as "There's no true benefit from this and I wrote this patch just to learn" That's similar to the reasoning I had when writing my operator overloading patch quite a few years ago, which *I* never proposed and never would have proposed :-) johannes