Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53429 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37231 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2011 16:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jun 2011 16:51:10 -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 67.192.241.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.193 smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.193] ([67.192.241.193:45463] helo=smtp193.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6B/AD-34681-E7A7FFD4 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:51:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp9.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D12003C059C; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:51:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp9.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 627143C0589; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DFF7A79.60304@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:51:05 -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: Derick Rethans CC: PHP Internals References: <4DFA7EDF.5050802@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 5.4 features for vote (long) From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 6/20/11 4:39 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote: > >> 3. Add E_STRICT to E_ALL. Nuff said. We did it in 6.0/unicode branch but >> didn't backport it. > > Not sure about that. Can't we just tell people to use -1 ? Well, yes, but a) we had it in 6.0 and b) ALL not meaning "all" is weird. >> 6. Array shortcuts. Make [ 'blah', 'blah' ] work same as array('blah', >> 'blah'), etc. Does not include any new JSON-like syntax, etc. - just making >> '[' be 'array(' and ']' be ')' in that context. > > And for associative arrays only "=>" ? Yes. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227