Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85071
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg3Xx+EjaWGrSyVNGejyJOk75zP5MV4geU_PKEGss2gQESjmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <60525DAED8264509BF14D25637CD7C1E@gmail.com> <CAPg3XxKqmfeZOS0Qusr1WNPgE1qKnnYRGr0MjpNcTSxF19vxhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABBJUpenkCnGsQPb8eWoPMG+Wz0SPeuaUxJccpCY+uUVPTsBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg3Xx+EjaWGrSyVNGejyJOk75zP5MV4geU_PKEGss2gQESjmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:47:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpfmmfNvC_Z92vL+PV+xGvrrv-LfFyOnFPzbLp5hCEseUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
Cc: Wei Dai <zxcvdavid@gmail.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Add preg_replace_callback_array function
From: laruence@php.net (Xinchen Hui)

Hey:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai <zxcvdavid@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi internals,
>> >>
>> >> The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
>> >> preg_replace_callback_array() in PHP is up for discussion:
>> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/preg_replace_callback_array
>> >>
>> >> This proposes adding one function: `preg_replace_callback_array()` th=
at
>> >> is the better way to Implement when there are multiple patterns need =
to
>> >> replace.
>> >>
>> >> I would love to hear your feedback! :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Could you add a paragraph or two explaining the reasons for choosing t=
his
>> > particular proposal?
>> > Some examples of what I would like to read:
>> >  - why we can't do preg_replace_callback($array_of_regexes,
>> > $array_of_callbacks, $subject)
>> array() also could be a valid callback.. (array("clasname", "methodname"=
)).
>> >  - why not preg_replace_callback($array_of_regex_to_callback_pairs,
>> > $subject)
>> there are also $limit, $count argument could be used.
>> >  - why not pass the regex used to the callback, as per Laruence's earl=
ier
>> > RFC
>> bc break..(change the callback's signature)
>> >
>> > And give a few links to historical discussions in the same sort of are=
a?
>> > E.g Laruence's RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/second_arg_to_preg_callba=
ck
>> and
>> > its discussion thread (http://php.markmail.org/thread/qwiyq5o2vwlbdczq=
).
>> >
>> thanks
>>
>
> In case my earlier message wasn't clear, I was asking for the RFC itself =
to
> be padded out with those sorts of details. The reason being, many (most)
> people won't be already familiar with the surrounding discussions that ha=
ve
> happened previously, or the reasons for the potentially strange-seeming
> design choices made in this RFC.
hmm, yeah, it's better to have these in the RFC.

I just replied in case Wei Dai is not familar with these reasons


thanks
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Any objections?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> =E2=80=94
>> >> Best,
>> >> Wei Dai
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Xinchen Hui
>> @Laruence
>> http://www.laruence.com/
>>



--=20
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/