Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85361 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25704 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2015 12:31:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Mar 2015 12:31:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=petercowburn@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=petercowburn@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.176 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: petercowburn@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.82.176 mail-we0-f176.google.com Received: from [74.125.82.176] ([74.125.82.176:33662] helo=mail-we0-f176.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 39/01-18917-2946D055 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:31:14 -0500 Received: by weop45 with SMTP id p45so101609351weo.0 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:31:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=aD7FcZ92LsFM5Gejf+Vnvf+jo8D9/ecB/IPKOLETGK0=; b=0HwGzcmWmaXvHqAI3HlQWTJNY3YMVoddFA1rbsWiY7yOhvSh1hx4lDM28zIbP3QDb0 s9/Fl7PYeGXNLYdbYptJ6/ImLsKrFSjvbaMbpnIM78mmdisPLgw605+wlDWK5S9xeBux OOlJs6celRwfv83HP+9AE7PGfdoGZ0YgBKmaQTj2/kYCxIr3BY/AwWRH7kqqqpokFmsU Vy9lhE24M2s73WOhW4dTX/2PZB7yn45E2i0TlClvN9x+pUkLo4AgJwCdpR3VwZ3B+IIC J5bo7sR8R/bJiqZBqLbtUQkIQY1+Oz/BujhIa/Tx5ZpVq9fwBgniD9t1cN+gorrJSg1E 0cbw== X-Received: by 10.194.90.210 with SMTP id by18mr163360347wjb.80.1426941071410; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:31:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.175.157 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 05:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:30:31 +0000 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfcf662ad4e960511cb9bf6 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?VG8gUkZDIG9yIE5vdCBUbyBSRkMgW3dhcyBSZTogW1BIUC1ERVZdIOWbnuWkje+8miBbUg==?= =?UTF-8?B?RkNdW0RJU0NVU1NJT05dIEFkZCBwcmVnX3JlcGxhY2VfY2FsbGJhY2tfYXJyYXkgZnVuY3Rpb25d?= From: petercowburn@gmail.com (Peter Cowburn) --047d7bfcf662ad4e960511cb9bf6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 21 March 2015 at 08:14, Xinchen Hui wrote: > Hey: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote: > > Hey: > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Alain Williams > wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:46:58PM +1100, Pierre Joye wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Wei Dai wrote: > >>> > Hi internals, > >>> >> Hi internals, > >>> >> > >>> >> The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliabl= e > >>> >> 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()` > that > >>> >> is the better way to Implement when there are multiple patterns > need to > >>> >> replace. > >>> >> > >>> >> I would love to hear your feedback! :) > >>> >> Any objections? > >>> > > >>> > I=E2=80=99ve sent this mail for four days, I don=E2=80=99t know if = this RFC needs a > vote. > >>> > If you guys have no objections on this, please review the code and > merge it, > >>> > thanks. > >>> > >>> Nice job, i like the idea. > >>> > >>> I am not sure about a RFC or not. It somehow looks like a sane > >>> replacement for something we killed (with good reasons). > >>> > >>> Let see what the other think :) > >> > >> I used s/something/code/ge in a perl script that I wrote a few days > ago. Very > >> useful. It would have been a lot more work to do it another way. > >> > >> So: +1 to the ability to do this, regardless of what mechanism is > eventually chosen. > > > > I also +1 for this. > > > > if there is no objections raises, I am going to merge it tomorrow.. > merged > > thanks > Whoa, hold on there a second. An RFC was created, presumably intending to follow that line of procedure. Then Xinchen comes along and puts a middle finger up to the whole process, reverts back to the old "if no-one complains by tomorrow, merge it" approach, then does the merge. I'm all for avoiding the potentially unnecessary red tape of the RFC process. Particularly for small, standalone changes like this. I fear there are other who aren't so lenient. Thoughts?.. > > > > thanks > >> > >> -- > >> Alain Williams > >> Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer= , > IT Lecturer. > >> +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ > >> Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: > http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php > >> #include > >> > >> -- > >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > -- > > Xinchen Hui > > @Laruence > > http://www.laruence.com/ > > > > -- > Xinchen Hui > @Laruence > http://www.laruence.com/ > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --047d7bfcf662ad4e960511cb9bf6--