Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81623 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97682 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2015 17:58:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Feb 2015 17:58:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@tekwire.net; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@tekwire.net; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain tekwire.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@tekwire.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:42752] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 05/8D-34915-9BABFC45 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:58:18 -0500 Received: from moorea (unknown [82.240.16.115]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90A74B022A; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:55:04 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: To: "'Andrey Andreev'" Cc: References: <009b01d03f09$bd263e00$3772ba00$@tekwire.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:58:12 +0100 Message-ID: <00b401d03f11$d01d27f0$705777d0$@tekwire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQI1L7H53I0B0tZLaq8Y5mMHxPOO5gKr19IEm/5gtXA= Content-Language: fr X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150202-0, 02/02/2015), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Feature request #38685: str_[i]replace(): Add support for (string needle, array replace) From: francois@tekwire.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?=) > De : Andrey Andreev [mailto:narf@devilix.net] > > I seem to have missed the new parameter (and constants) addition > during the discussion ... sorry to say this, but that one would > probably fail the RFC. Mmh... I don't like the idea of adding a parameter but several people = argued that we needed a way to control looping behavior, as the original = idea was to loop through the replace array. But I am still hesitating. Instead of voting on the RFC, please tell me which behavior you prefer : - an options argument to decide on the looping behavior, - always stopping replacements when the replace array is exhausted - always looping The other options are too exotic to become the default behavior. Cheers Fran=C3=A7ois