Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69754 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86514 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2013 10:10:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Oct 2013 10:10:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=sebastian@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=sebastian@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 188.94.27.5 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: sebastian@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 188.94.27.5 scarlet.netpirates.net Received: from [188.94.27.5] ([188.94.27.5:36099] helo=scarlet.netpirates.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1C/AD-10840-E2F46625 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:10:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 21891 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2013 10:10:54 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 21883, pid: 21886, t: 0.0369s scanners: attach: 1.4.0 clamav: 0.97.6/m:55/d:17990 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.179.21?) (team@thephp.cc@31.16.194.148) by scarlet.netpirates.net with ESMTPA; 22 Oct 2013 10:10:54 -0000 Message-ID: <52664F2B.1000808@php.net> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:10:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <52664B00.3030409@php.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Vote] Keywords as identifiers From: sebastian@php.net (Sebastian Bergmann) On 10/22/2013 12:08 PM, Bob Weinand wrote: > I had announced previously on the list and it's noted in the RFC too, that > these inconsistencies had been removed. Okay, thanks for the information. > That's actually not the problem; Pierre and Derick are talking about the > implementation in C. I understood the point Pierre and Derick raised.