Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91193 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38030 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2016 07:08:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Feb 2016 07:08:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.175 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.175 mail-pf0-f175.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.175] ([209.85.192.175:34076] helo=mail-pf0-f175.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 21/F4-25203-D733CB65 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:08:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x65so25107302pfb.1 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:08:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iKw/+lc5poeOjJPpb1Lz16GyUARU8ZqUwtyE+ZcvWSk=; b=I59+ty+g/l8dKXi4vrwkZ9UeWnnOOcNgxbUl8UP7SWA9DWUZz5eQs7pvg+DSf0BZuz SN8ZQ5H9SciEkFeXkE7h977sMecta8nQDctKCu0l7ubacr4YHJ6dTb1AugtHTlAhvQ30 gwdJ2pCG60lg7jwpUuqLI8CasnGRTnzrzCNpFH7JNxXduSoebzwZxz3s3iqw4zcgxfTi u89QwRVxrm/Hb2f2tTWX+/E6tDLcHCJwVNSg6j+6jfRiLJ/U9ffGZtenPhuSJZ17ExmL XQii5dljsKoNVUKOkCdkoNhDOPxPFSZsPbOA+UgAuuSLCzLW1hteRHvcTH6+BowILnTo +Kng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iKw/+lc5poeOjJPpb1Lz16GyUARU8ZqUwtyE+ZcvWSk=; b=mHhexP5wQCB7NmIhPQp7nAhX9mJGqQ018J6c21KJtaF+q+wpA21iKbypvdfz1Im5Ei 2DAakoBHMyZhWau8othiuTXQGeIMBUgbpaTvJH0cNjACDM5RnJzfwJKkLkOtZmgc0a0V BIuq6AXUTS6VBNCpM3BMyVMcmh13r/g++2fI+0IxvI1WeJXvrAwHRRMVVt59eAoMUccW SuHV3vRofy5JuuTd9jR6ASdyv4OgR8Hs/Uky87Yu38iPib6zNGF85zCwDuRIIQ/dH2CI xdQSO2dQWsUADKTg7HvX0wSwPZkCi+hfaT5YmkjyOtubUP+npNiDrtliyegFo7hOPeux 9n+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTM4vlrEn4iJdqJJefYb4zBcErUgMsutEekzboohAlWQ1Ae0vmD9vljM+pi6nDPkw== X-Received: by 10.98.75.200 with SMTP id d69mr65147917pfj.108.1455174521953; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from Stas-Air.local ([2602:304:cdc2:e5f0:9193:67a1:4c01:a52b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m16sm9682256pfi.75.2016.02.10.23.08.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:08:41 -0800 (PST) To: Yasuo Ohgaki References: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net> <56BB4A5F.3060906@php.net> <56BC29C8.9070308@gmail.com> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?= , Internals Message-ID: <56BC3372.1010308@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:08:34 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev) Hi! > RFC must maintain consistency across existing features/specifications, There's a lot of things people call "consistency", apparently. I don't see inventing new syntax for doing concatenation to have anything to do with consistency. > make things worse certainly. Making patch and/or RFC simple is not the > reason why we have RFC, but to have full featured/discussed/consistent To have simple patch is not really why we have RFCs, of course. But having simple (or not overly complex) RFC is a sign of a good RFC. On the contrary, overly complex and convoluted ones make it hard to review them and usually lead to unintended consequences and mistakes since it is hard to predict the outcomes in such complexity. > Aren't we better to have consistent/complete RFCs almost always? Since everybody defines "consistent" to mean pretty much anything they want, there's no answer to this question. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com