Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66285 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 23691 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2013 18:16:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Feb 2013 18:16:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.104 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.104 blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1 Received: from [65.55.111.104] ([65.55.111.104:8088] helo=blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2F/F3-33355-18D4E215 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:16:33 -0500 Received: from BLU0-SMTP59 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:16:31 -0800 X-EIP: [inWiLDY5eAN0C0LltxZkxhGOT/r99h04] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from bob-weinands-imac.fritz.box ([78.141.134.76]) by BLU0-SMTP59.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:16:29 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:16:26 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1361810738.2376.74.camel@guybrush> <512BA931.7010909@sugarcrm.com> <512BB284.4060900@sugarcrm.com> <1361826106.2376.78.camel@guybrush> To: PHP Developers Mailing List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2013 18:16:29.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[90230100:01CE1516] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About restricting the recursive implicit calls From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) May someone merge this PR (#290) as there are no arguments against it? Or do I have to wait a little bit? (How long?) Bob