Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52174 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 94384 invoked from network); 9 May 2011 18:13:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2011 18:13:45 -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 67.192.241.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.173 smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.173] ([67.192.241.173:48914] helo=smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 29/BF-20726-6DE28CD4 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 14:13:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp17.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DCF7F1884AC; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:13:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp17.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 6C7B51884A9; Mon, 9 May 2011 14:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DC82ED2.5080107@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:13:38 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" CC: "RQuadling@gmail.com" , PHP Internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Please let's not bitch about lazy users not learning C to implement THEIR missing feature. (Was Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again) From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I'm not bitching against do and don't dos... I'm bitching about > ignored feature that are not even discussed. I think annotations were discussed very extensively. But I totally can see how one particular aspect could slip through. In this case it is right to remind people about it and restart the discussion - by stating what exactly was missed and what new was out there that in your opinion didn't get enough attention. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227