Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73448 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45185 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2014 01:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Mar 2014 01:12:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain cypressintegrated.com designates 173.1.104.101 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 173.1.104.101 rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com Received: from [173.1.104.101] ([173.1.104.101:60049] helo=rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5A/C2-24797-1EA73335 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:12:02 -0500 Received: from bad.dop.co ([108.12.130.219]) by rproxy2-b-iv.figureone.com (Brand New Heavy v1.0) with ASMTP id NEM69054 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:11:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:11:36 -0400 Reply-To: Sanford Whiteman X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <338906580.20140326211136@cypressintegrated.com> To: Nils Andre In-Reply-To: References: <532FF7B9.5040700@hoa-project.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP Specification From: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com (Sanford Whiteman) > There are so many bugs which are actually considered features by so > many people of this list. But actually, I'd really love you guys > specify the tons of examples of really weird behaviour found here: > http://www.phpwtf.org/ > That should be a good read for everyone who thinks that PHP is just > fine and does not need a fundamental redesign. You seem to contradict yourself here. Do you want those implementations reverse-engineered into a specification ("spec to build," as was done with ECMAScript) or do you want a "fundamental redesign" (implying those examples should behave differently)? Also, if you submit a list of legit surprises, it shouldn't have Newbie Nodocs examples cluttering it up. FALSE fails an array typehint? A string constant can't be checked with instanceof, but a $variable variant can be? NULL isn't considered scalar? Sorry, these just don't carry any shock value. Yohgaki's inconsistencies RFC has much better zingers if that's what you want. -- Sandy