Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55773 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24351 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2011 10:02:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Oct 2011 10:02:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.170 mail-yx0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.170] ([209.85.213.170:62758] helo=mail-yx0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E1/73-04654-EA2C29E4 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:02:23 -0400 Received: by yxi13 with SMTP id 13so5995498yxi.29 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:02:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nJM/aVVP4+5c6fxjC2cMiWkTDAFQIOiSmVVNfwrMmM4=; b=sfreiLUncOM/kO7fJsC5WRTRX0I4cc8c06XxnjpwCc/u5SK4wVskra+7HpbOOuUWsh l57LUuDbZKjBobryFqypwvmc3Jr396gp+QV6hwUp1WcIPyu4i/A+hyfzzukh52pW+PFd T0xhjO4x9URcWCxoAQMaCtqG5PUbotagNe7D4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.116.98 with SMTP id f62mr19664907yhh.48.1318240940274; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.169.18 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:02:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:02:20 +0200 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: Ferenc Kovacs , Peter Cowburn , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Array dereferencing using alternative array syntax From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) hi, On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: > Imho it should be supported regardless of whether we want to remove it > or not - for the sake of consistency. If we ever want to have a consistent syntax, then no, we should not add it and only support the consistent syntax in new additions. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org