Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90140 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82637 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2016 19:45:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jan 2016 19:45:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@golemon.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@golemon.com; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (pb1.pair.com: domain golemon.com does not designate 209.85.217.193 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@golemon.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.193 mail-lb0-f193.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.193] ([209.85.217.193:33200] helo=mail-lb0-f193.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 05/C3-12097-34D1C865 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:45:08 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id bc4so11244722lbc.0 for ; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:45:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=golemon-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pzHI+BZigdX8EhX795TsTMVs+vppG8TvDqTEvFyPE4o=; b=PvfCHobuFE/cxx0HJH7MYeeTRvCs17HNBNJIe5cTnKHfVCgVpfilL6L41zhzQQAZD6 aDa3bswnarhvQDeqmQn4GAXztbJsu6zs0K2j1WR8IVLQkFtjI+04VMrR8qi2KdQWhevK YLgcrQNP7fheMalVOeflYT+Sf0CMuBoX5l2/pp7WLJ+/J8NtxkM/EC5UgzosDfE8iZ09 udM+X5gDSWpK9ixUD3il0JGqDoalber2/ViHiPFPiIfSNBVrjQTq3v5hXvEEYjzuPtSy DCVq+H9j0v2UwwNdtsz+fc0ZTQqPZ/TqTtH/fR/lB1pLzt/AxaFkh/8QEJTv3CHyfE8K es/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pzHI+BZigdX8EhX795TsTMVs+vppG8TvDqTEvFyPE4o=; b=cvRH8xH8f63PSnp4VWzATYmDz+xH9to/PC/RXdawj7OjOmnLw1dNDDxHMAEcID26c5 5rJA5ranvc0cukjFRONqkmAggj6Md+2145rMJyY/6Q+yF2PGAYDwdzdO7dE6LLSEykBj 9hCuVshLSGdcr8Zu7gidM6zSFqIotd+y5yDDksKckmcVFAPdh0xnaW4JjJBHD2uZNf+e bYQ7A6Doe2EmkuI39tAbXeFf2bALHNQZ/TQJVvQusyP2N3X80eMDE4ivm9bFUHCaWC5Z DeC6Je2SEthE12IcTwx6bm+sN7QX72H5ShHFqBXNIlUHt+q5Wo5fAgKoKgjV/SYnidBi S34A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTXUrAD8XJQqnXx4TaQoFQSEYRtSDgUaEogt3nNsKy/qLX92mXXnI53+mYNFC8jjhsb7tHrbfGEOnK8Ckg0HdDFlrSQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.181.196 with SMTP id dy4mr17443395lbc.42.1452023104862; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:45:04 -0800 (PST) Sender: php@golemon.com Received: by 10.112.37.44 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:45:04 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2620:10d:c090:200::6485] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 11:45:04 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nrcpJqA2LYmhtlasU6mxzP6_uLE Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Normalize token_get_all() output (with flag) From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon) On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: > Would be nice if someone could come up with a more explicit name for the > flag. TOKEN_FULL is not obvious, at least to me. TOKEN_ALWAYS_ARRAY? > Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the name either, but I couldn't come up with anything better at the time. Maybe TOKEN_ASSOC? Since it provides associative array elements (as opposed to the current indexed array behavior) > I'd also like to have a flag TOKEN_NO_LINENOS with deduplication of token > arrays, but that's a separate matter... > Not sure what you're suggesting here. Can you elaborate? -Sara