Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91104 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 2832 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2016 22:20:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Feb 2016 22:20:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:45227] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/68-28222-F03C7B65 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 17:20:00 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B8EA4B00E8; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 23:17:25 +0100 (CET) To: Nikita Popov , Stanislav Malyshev References: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net> <56AE8735.4070901@gmail.com> <56AFC8CC.6040201@gmail.com> Cc: Internals Message-ID: <56B7C308.9070606@php.net> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 23:19:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160207-1, 07/02/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 06/02/2016 16:16, Nikita Popov a écrit : > > In any case, while this is no doubt an interesting question, and one we > should resolve, it is tangential to this RFC and this RFC should make no > recommendations either way. I would prefer not to be forced to vote against > this RFC due to the inclusion of the unnecessary and unrelated "In the > documentation" section. A different proposal should concern itself with > this matter. Right. Just moved the chapter about this syntax recommendation from the RFC body to 'Future scope'. So, this is not part of the RFC anymore. Regards François