Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70611 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62080 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2013 21:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Dec 2013 21:49:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.240 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.240 imap2-1.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from [198.187.29.240] ([198.187.29.240:43420] helo=imap2-1.ox.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C7/44-32587-08F2AA25 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:49:53 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.13] (unknown [94.13.99.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1C9A5A007C; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:49:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52AA2F76.4000109@ajf.me> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:49:42 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Amps CC: Adam Harvey , PHP internals References: <52AA1649.2090601@ajf.me> <52AA1D9C.9010306@ajf.me> <02678ACF-D1F7-44ED-A750-4D9ABEF6956C@rtin.so> In-Reply-To: <02678ACF-D1F7-44ED-A750-4D9ABEF6956C@rtin.so> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PROPOSAL] Alphanumeric decrement From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 12/12/13 21:32, Martin Amps wrote: > This topic has been discussed before, see > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=137415522724276&w=1 for the thread Thanks for that. Silly of me not to have had a look at previous discussions - I knew I'd forgotten something! Looks like not much happened in that thread, and it wasn't agreed particularly that it should or shouldn't be done. This thread might be different as there's a patch. By the way, this implementation would make "XYZ0000" decrement to "XYY9999" as Peter Lind had suggested there, since the string decrement implementation was deliberately made to be a direct inverse of the string increment implementation. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/