Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55778 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 50508 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2011 14:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Oct 2011 14:35:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=nikita.ppv@googlemail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=nikita.ppv@googlemail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: nikita.ppv@googlemail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.170 mail-ey0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.170] ([209.85.215.170:36741] helo=mail-ey0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BB/4A-26502-034549E4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:35:28 -0400 Received: by eyg7 with SMTP id 7so2546088eyg.29 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1qdpzUH9sAsvEqs38hX6tdGCDmzF9kf0khRqMMpA3JQ=; b=xwv48wulYDwnWlWm3Yu8geYiV/4Eh1iSkrcRRxzrWh/v3/0eCMZWzAF1Zd/j7PZpYX gxu3PPhlxTrNOcx1AqGmjp/YBWlsSgvM2uUiU0u9F2Ifob264GrDgIDPP19Bd2nEynZf jh12ZpBcwM2AIggSwFkgGIMo1D122nABfi7z4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.6.131 with SMTP id 3mr2227506een.32.1318343725565; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.99.205 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:35:25 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye 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: nikita.ppv@googlemail.com (Nikita Popov) On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > 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. You may have a point there. But last time the alternative syntax was discussed it was decided to keep it, so probably the dereferencing support should be added for it too. Or do you want to discuss the removal of the syntax another time? Nikita