Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:59695 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 21042 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2012 00:47:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Apr 2012 00:47:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; 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] ([67.192.241.173:34165] helo=smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4A/57-18401-584D48F4 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:47:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 249472584DD; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:46:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp7.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id CC9272584F2; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F84D482.20905@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:46:58 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Craig CC: Nikita Popov , PHP internals References: <4F84C76A.9090104@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Allow non-variable arguments to empty() From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Err isn't this something that should go through the RFC process first? > I think it's a good idea and I'll probably vote for it, but as I > understand the RFC process was created specifically for stuff like this. One doesn't preclude the other. Pull is code, RFC is discussion, they can go in parallel. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227