Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:62550 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 98891 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2012 01:48:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Aug 2012 01:48:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lars@strojny.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lars@strojny.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain strojny.net from 46.4.40.248 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lars@strojny.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 46.4.40.248 milch.schokokeks.org Received: from [46.4.40.248] ([46.4.40.248:45358] helo=milch.schokokeks.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 77/C3-13425-5E1DA305 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:48:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.32] (ppp-93-104-187-29.dynamic.mnet-online.de [::ffff:93.104.187.29]) (AUTH: PLAIN lars@schokokeks.org, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by milch.schokokeks.org with ESMTPSA; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:48:18 +0200 id 0000000000000023.00000000503AD1E2.00003CE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:48:17 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <6C036B08-0E70-4A09-A8B6-EAAC518C28D0@strojny.net> References: <503A68F9.9050405@sugarcrm.com> <503A84F3.4080808@sugarcrm.com> <503ACBDD.3080304@lerdorf.com> To: PHP Internals X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE]Call for voting: support use list in foreach From: lars@strojny.net (Lars Strojny) Hi Gwynne, Am 27.08.2012 um 03:39 schrieb Gwynne Raskind : > (And > a side note on that, the requirement of C89 standard compliance in PHP > has less and less advantage these days, and handicaps those few > language features in the later flavors of C (C99, gnu99, Clang C, > etc.) which -could- lessen the current unreadability of the code.) OT but because I stumbled upon that some time ago: what was the original = reason to enforce C89 and what would be needed to allow a modern = standard? With regards, Lars=