Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75976 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99942 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2014 20:45:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 20:45:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bobwei9@hotmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bobwei9@hotmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.109 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bobwei9@hotmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.55.111.109 blu004-omc2s34.hotmail.com Received: from [65.55.111.109] ([65.55.111.109:61672] helo=BLU004-OMC2S34.hotmail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BB/02-23414-3EE10D35 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:45:24 -0400 Received: from BLU436-SMTP2 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S34.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:45:23 -0700 X-TMN: [aqFI2xtWL2rHQNwW8GYFIp+WqA5UV3gL] X-Originating-Email: [bobwei9@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from bobweinandsimac.fritz.box ([78.141.132.157]) by BLU436-SMTP2.smtp.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.0.9200.16384); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:45:21 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) In-Reply-To: <53D01C19.9050606@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:45:16 +0200 CC: Dmitry Stogov , Nikita Popov , Julien Pauli , PHP Internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <53D01C19.9050606@sugarcrm.com> To: Stas Malyshev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2014 20:45:21.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[05159440:01CFA6B7] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Weird constant expression syntax and bug From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand) Am 23.7.2014 um 22:33 schrieb Stas Malyshev : > Hi! >=20 >> It was a restriction to not support arrays in constant context. It = seems >> like nobody can remember why it was introduced. >=20 > My vague recollection is that it had some troubles with keeping > refcounts consistent, esp. withing bytecode caching context, but it = may > be a false memory :) That doesn't really make much sense to me, at least not with current = engine... As said, I've tested it and didn't find issues. Maybe I just test the = wrong things=85 >> However, I think it's too dangerous to break it in last minute before >> release. >=20 > We definitely need to fix the WTF with "no runtime use" for defined > constant and the segfault before the release. I think for the arrays, = if > we can't have it working properly we'd better not have array support > there for 5.6.0 and fix it in 5.6.1 than have this weird "no runtime > use" thing. Well, we still could fix it now, AFAIK, we will still have another RC = now and when we fix it only for 5.6.1, there also will only be one RC in = between. That's no gain in testing time etc.. Bob > --=20 > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/