Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77671 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 91737 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2014 13:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Sep 2014 13:03:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.245 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.245 imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [198.187.29.245] ([198.187.29.245:58704] helo=imap11-3.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7E/4C-27411-53465245 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:03:50 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5258B8800F1; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:03:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap11.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap11.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4fjAINu0vUQm; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-27-90.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.27.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 33E518800F2; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:03:44 +0100 Cc: Dmitry Stogov , Leigh , PHP Internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <1A9A0580-7493-4F9B-8D21-7E522C31D990@ajf.me> References: To: Nikita Popov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Fix list() behavior inconsistency From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 26 Sep 2014, at 11:11, Nikita Popov wrote: > So, just to clarify: If we vote to "remove string handling in all = cases" > does that also mean that we "remove ArrayAccess support in all cases"? = If > so, could the RFC please explicitly mention that? I myself would be in favour of removing string support, but I don=92t = want to remove ArrayAccess. There=92s no good reason to get rid of it. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/