# [PROPOSAL]Add second to callback of preg_replace_callback - Thread: https://externals.io/message/67199 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/67199 - Started by Laruence on 2013-04-29T16:46:03+00:00 - Messages: 22 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #67199 — Laruence — 2013-04-29T16:46:03+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67199 Hey: there comes a FR: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64730 the main idea is, in 5.5 we remove support of 'e' modifier. then comes a problem, the old codes(a real use case see https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.4/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390): preg_replace(array( "/pattern1(.*)/", "/pattern2(.*)/" ), array( "/replace1/e", "/replace2/e" ) ..), can not be easier convert to the "callback" style. then I have to change it to something very ugly like(a real use case see: https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.5/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390): function callback($subject) { if (!strncmp($subject, "pattern1", 8)) { //function for pattern 1 } else if(!strncmp($subject, "pattern2", 8)) { //function for pattern 2 } else ..... } so I propose to add a second argument to callback(aim to php-5.5.1), which is the matched regex string self. then I can simplify the previous codes to: function callback ($subject, $regex) { $replace_funcs = array( "/pattern1(.*)" => function ($subect) { //function for parttern 1; }, "/pattern2(.*)" => function($sbuect) { //function for pattern 2; } ); $replace_funcs[$regex]($subject); } what do you think(of course, the second argument can also easily change to be the regex idx in the regex array)? patch is here: https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=64730&patch=sencode_argument.patch&revision=latest -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67200 — Remi Collet — 2013-04-29T17:07:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67200 · In reply to: #67199 Le 29/04/2013 18:46, Laruence a écrit : > so I propose to add a second argument to callback(aim to php-5.5.1), Seems a useful fix to this problem (also encounter elsewhere) > what do you think(of course, the second argument can also easily change > to be the regex idx in the regex array)? I will prefer the idx (regex can be really long and complex string, and a minor change to a regex need to be also applied in the callback) Esp if you can use a more simpler / meaningful value Ex: $code = preg_replace_callback( array( "foo" => "/some very complex regex/", "bar" => "/another one/", ... ), function($matches, $idx) { switch ($idx) { case 'foo' ... case 'bar': ... } }, $code); My 0,02€ Remi. --- ## #67201 — Xinchen Hui — 2013-04-29T17:20:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67201 发自我的 iPad 在 2013-4-30，1:09，Remi Collet 写道： > Le 29/04/2013 18:46, Laruence a écrit : > > > […] > > Seems a useful fix to this problem (also encounter elsewhere) > > > […] > > I will prefer the idx (regex can be really long and complex string, and > a minor change to a regex need to be also applied in the callback) Yeah, I used regex just because it is easier to make a quick patch. Using index need more functions signature changed Will make that patch tomorrow Thanks > > Esp if you can use a more simpler / meaningful value > > Ex: > > $code = preg_replace_callback( > array( > "foo" => "/some very complex regex/", > "bar" => "/another one/", > ... > ), > function($matches, $idx) { > switch ($idx) { > case 'foo' > ... > case 'bar': > ... > } > }, > $code); > > > My 0,02� > > Remi. --- ## #67202 — Nikita Popov — 2013-04-29T17:43:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67202 · In reply to: #67199 > Hey: > there comes a FR: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64730 > > the main idea is, in 5.5 we remove support of 'e' modifier. > > then comes a problem, the old codes(a real use case see > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.4/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390): > > preg_replace(array( > > "/pattern1(.*)/", > "/pattern2(.*)/" > ), > array( > "/replace1/e", > "/replace2/e" > ) > ..), > > can not be easier convert to the "callback" style. > > then I have to change it to something very ugly like(a real use case > see: https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.5/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390 > ): > > function callback($subject) { > if (!strncmp($subject, "pattern1", 8)) { > //function for pattern 1 > } else if(!strncmp($subject, "pattern2", 8)) { > //function for pattern 2 > } else ..... > > } > > so I propose to add a second argument to callback(aim to php-5.5.1), > which is the matched regex string self. > > then I can simplify the previous codes to: > > function callback ($subject, $regex) { > $replace_funcs = array( > "/pattern1(.*)" => function ($subect) { //function for > parttern 1; }, > "/pattern2(.*)" => function($sbuect) { //function for pattern > 2; } > ); > > $replace_funcs[$regex]($subject); > } > > what do you think(of course, the second argument can also easily change > to be the regex idx in the regex array)? > > patch is here: > > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=64730&patch=sencode_argument.patch&revision=latest > > What's wrong with this? $replacements = ['regex' => 'callback']; foreach ($replacements as $regex => $callback) { $str = preg_replace_callback($regex, $callback, $str); } Nikita --- ## #67203 — ALeX — 2013-04-29T21:53:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67203 · In reply to: #67199 what about patch preg_replace to accept callbacks? example: preg_replace(array( "/pattern1(.*)/", "/pattern2(.*)/" ), array( function ($pat) { ... } , "replace" ) , ... ); --- ## #67205 — Laruence — 2013-04-30T02:31:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67205 · In reply to: #67202 > > > > […] > What's wrong with this? > > $replacements = ['regex' => 'callback']; > foreach ($replacements as $regex => $callback) { > $str = preg_replace_callback($regex, $callback, $str); > hey: efficiency & simplicity do you use foreach even there is array_map? thanks > } > > Nikita > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67206 — Laruence — 2013-04-30T02:32:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67206 · In reply to: #67203 > what about patch preg_replace to accept callbacks? > > example: > preg_replace(array( > "/pattern1(.*)/", > "/pattern2(.*)/" > ), > array( > function ($pat) { ... } , > "replace" > ) > , ... ); > Hey: then I think perg_replace_callback become useless thanks > > -- > > > > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67211 — Anthony Ferrara — 2013-04-30T11:30:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67211 · In reply to: #67203 ALeX, > what about patch preg_replace to accept callbacks? > > example: > preg_replace(array( > "/pattern1(.*)/", > "/pattern2(.*)/" > ), > array( > function ($pat) { ... } , > "replace" > ) > , ... ); > > There are some weird questions that come up with that. For example, if an array item is an object that implements both __invoke() and __toString(), which should be fired? Is it a string? Or a callback? What if I pass a literal string "strlen", is that a callback, or a replacement? The point is not that it's a bad idea and that we can't make a distinction, but more that there are pretty severe edge-cases that we'd have to work around, and if we don't get it right security could suffer significantly (especially when user-input is allowed to be a replacement)... Anthony --- ## #67212 — ALeX — 2013-04-30T11:48:36+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67212 · In reply to: #67211 > There are some weird questions that come up with that. For example, if an > array item is an object that implements both __invoke() and __toString(), > which should be fired? Is it a string? Or a callback? What if I pass a > literal string "strlen", is that a callback, or a replacement? You're right that was not fully thought trough - I shouldn't post in the middle of the night ;-) What about a new modifier (example "c") which then uses the replacement as a callback. --- ## #67291 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T12:39:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67291 · In reply to: #67199 Hey: Sorry for the delay, the new patch, which make the second argument the regex array keys is attached. https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=64730&patch=second_arg_rege_key.patch&revision=latest with this patch, preg_replace_callback will call user callback with two arguments, the first one is the same, the second is the regex key if the regex is an array or `NULL` if the regex is a string. then we can do something like: $code = preg_replace_callback( array( "foo" => "/some very complex regex/", "bar" => "/another one/", ... ), function($matches, $idx) { switch ($idx) { case 'foo' ... case 'bar': ... } }, $code); if no objections, I will commit this patch after 5.5. 0 final release.. thanks > Hey: > there comes a FR: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=64730 > > the main idea is, in 5.5 we remove support of 'e' modifier. > > then comes a problem, the old codes(a real use case see > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.4/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390): > > preg_replace(array( > > "/pattern1(.*)/", > "/pattern2(.*)/" > ), > array( > "/replace1/e", > "/replace2/e" > ) > ..), > > can not be easier convert to the "callback" style. > > then I have to change it to something very ugly like(a real use case > see: https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/PHP-5.5/Zend/zend_vm_gen.php#L390 > ): > > function callback($subject) { > if (!strncmp($subject, "pattern1", 8)) { > //function for pattern 1 > } else if(!strncmp($subject, "pattern2", 8)) { > //function for pattern 2 > } else ..... > > } > > so I propose to add a second argument to callback(aim to php-5.5.1), > which is the matched regex string self. > > then I can simplify the previous codes to: > > function callback ($subject, $regex) { > $replace_funcs = array( > "/pattern1(.*)" => function ($subect) { //function for > parttern 1; }, > "/pattern2(.*)" => function($sbuect) { //function for > pattern 2; } > ); > > $replace_funcs[$regex]($subject); > } > > what do you think(of course, the second argument can also easily change > to be the regex idx in the regex array)? > > patch is here: > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=64730&patch=sencode_argument.patch&revision=latest > > -- > Laruence Xinchen Hui > http://www.laruence.com/ > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67292 — Nikita Popov — 2013-05-04T12:49:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67292 · In reply to: #67291 > Hey: > Sorry for the delay, the new patch, which make the second argument the > regex array keys is attached. > > > > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=64730&patch=second_arg_rege_key.patch&revision=latest > > with this patch, preg_replace_callback will call user callback with two > arguments, the first one is the same, the second is the regex key if the > regex is an array or `NULL` if the regex is a string. > > then we can do something like: > > $code = preg_replace_callback( > array( > "foo" => "/some very complex regex/", > "bar" => "/another one/", > ... > ), > function($matches, $idx) { > switch ($idx) { > case 'foo' > ... > case 'bar': > ... > } > }, > $code); > > > if no objections, I will commit this patch after 5.5. 0 final release.. > > thanks > I object. If this were using the preg_replace_callback(Array, Array, String) syntax [which is not practically possible due to ambiguity], I would agree that this is a nice feature which makes the function consistent with preg_replace and str_replace. But this implementation with some weird additional identifier that you need to switch over makes absolutely no sense to me and only complicated the API. Better to just use a loop for this. One thing that might be nicer API wise but without ambiguity is an preg_replace_callback(['regex' => callback], $string) overload. Though personally I'm not really a fan of doing overloads with completely different argument types. Nikita --- ## #67293 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T12:52:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67293 · In reply to: #67292 > > > > […] > > I object. If this were using the preg_replace_callback(Array, Array, > String) syntax [which is not practically possible due to ambiguity], I > would agree that this is a nice feature which makes the function consistent > with preg_replace and str_replace. But this implementation with some weird > additional identifier that you need to switch over makes absolutely no > sense to me and only complicated the API. Better to just use a loop for > this. > if you got an better solution, please propose it. only object won't help much here, since the problem is there, we need to solve it. thanks > > One thing that might be nicer API wise but without ambiguity is an > preg_replace_callback(['regex' => callback], $string) overload. Though > personally I'm not really a fan of doing overloads with completely > different argument types. > > Nikita > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67294 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T12:58:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67294 · In reply to: #67292 > > > > […] > > I object. If this were using the preg_replace_callback(Array, Array, > String) syntax [which is not practically possible due to ambiguity], I > would agree that this is a nice feature which makes the function consistent > with preg_replace and str_replace. But this implementation with some weird > additional identifier that you need to switch over makes absolutely no > sense to me and only complicated the API. Better to just use a loop for > this. > And, I *DO NOT* think it's weird, it's few choice we got now.. because: As I said, a loop is inefficient here. > > One thing that might be nicer API wise but without ambiguity is an > preg_replace_callback(['regex' => callback], $string) overload. Though > personally I'm not really a fan of doing overloads with completely > different argument types. > I don't this this is possible.. thinking of : $regex = array(0 => "xxx"); if by accident there is a function call "xxx". thanks > > > Nikita > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67295 — Nikita Popov — 2013-05-04T12:58:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67295 · In reply to: #67293 > > > > > > > […] > if you got an better solution, please propose it. > > only object won't help much here, since the problem is there, we need to > solve it. > > thanks > Sorry, but what problem is there again? As I already said earlier, you can just use a loop: foreach ($replacements as $regex => $callback) { $str = preg_replace_callback($regex, $callback, $str); } Which is both clearer and requires less code. Nikita --- ## #67296 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T13:01:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67296 · In reply to: #67295 > > > > […] > > Sorry, but what problem is there again? As I already said earlier, you can > just use a loop: > > > foreach ($replacements as $regex => $callback) { > $str = preg_replace_callback($regex, $callback, $str); > } > So if there are 10 regex in the array, you will got 10 DO_FCALL. 10 times arguments accept, 10 times etc... and AS I already said: IT is inefficient. I personally can not accept it. thanks > > Which is both clearer and requires less code. > > Nikita > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67298 — Anthony Ferrara — 2013-05-04T13:46:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67298 · In reply to: #67296 Laruence, > foreach ($replacements as $regex => $callback) { > > […] > > So if there are 10 regex in the array, you will got 10 DO_FCALL. 10 times > arguments accept, 10 times etc... > > and AS I already said: IT is inefficient. I personally can not accept it. > > thanks > > My initial reaction was that the difference in runtime is going to be so insignificant that it's the very definition of a micro-optimization between the two. And unless you're doing it millions of times in a hot-loop, it's never even going to be realized. I was going to reply to that effect. Then I decided to write a quick test. $count = 100; $start = microtime(true); for ($i = 0; $i < $count; $i++) { $str = "abc"; $str = preg_replace_callback('/a/', function($a) { return strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); $str = preg_replace_callback('/b/', function($a) { return strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); $str = preg_replace_callback('/c/', function($a) { return strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); $str = preg_replace_callback('/a/', function($a) { return strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); $str = preg_replace_callback('/b/', function($a) { return strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); $str = preg_replace_callback('/c/', function($a) { return strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); } echo "Completed in " . (microtime(true) - $start) . " Seconds\n"; $start = microtime(true); for ($i = 0; $i < $count; $i++) { $str = "abc"; $str = preg_replace(array( '/a/e', '/b/e', '/c/e', '/a/e', '/b/e', '/c/e', ), array( 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', 'strtolower(\'$1\')', 'strtolower(\'$1\')', 'strtolower(\'$1\')', ), $str ); } echo "Completed in " . (microtime(true) - $start) . " Seconds\n"; So basically, it's comparing the old behavior (one call to preg_replace) that you want to emulate, with what Nikita is suggesting. I ran it on 3v4l (http://3v4l.org/dRjtU) and the results were quite surprising. I was expecting the first to be slightly slower than the second. But the reality surprised me: Completed in 0.00076389312744141 Seconds Completed in 0.0012428760528564 Seconds As it turns out, calling `preg_replace_callback()` multiple times is almost 50% faster than using a single call to `preg_replace()`. It's likely due to the precompiled nature of closures, vs the compilation happening multiple times at invocation in the preg_replace /e case. But it's still worth noting that switching from the /e style to a more traditional preg_replace_callback implementation will get you a significant boost in performance of that. Now, keep in mind, we're talking 0.000005 seconds saved per "execution" (group of 6 replacements). So it's not likely to matter much or be worth worrying about... My $0.02 at least... Anthony --- ## #67300 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T14:28:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67300 · In reply to: #67298 > Laruence, > > > […] > times > > […] > it. > > […] > My initial reaction was that the difference in runtime is going to be so > insignificant that it's the very definition of a micro-optimization between > the two. And unless you're doing it millions of times in a hot-loop, it's > never even going to be realized. I was going to reply to that effect. > > Then I decided to write a quick test. > > $count = 100; > > $start = microtime(true); > for ($i = 0; $i < $count; $i++) { > $str = "abc"; > $str = preg_replace_callback('/a/', function($a) { return > strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); > $str = preg_replace_callback('/b/', function($a) { return > strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); > $str = preg_replace_callback('/c/', function($a) { return > strtoupper($a[0]); }, $str); > $str = preg_replace_callback('/a/', function($a) { return > strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); > $str = preg_replace_callback('/b/', function($a) { return > strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); > $str = preg_replace_callback('/c/', function($a) { return > strtolower($a[0]); }, $str); > } > echo "Completed in " . (microtime(true) - $start) . " Seconds\n"; > > $start = microtime(true); > for ($i = 0; $i < $count; $i++) { > $str = "abc"; > $str = preg_replace(array( > '/a/e', > '/b/e', > '/c/e', > '/a/e', > '/b/e', > '/c/e', > ), > array( > 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', > 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', > 'strtoupper(\'$1\')', > 'strtolower(\'$1\')', > 'strtolower(\'$1\')', > 'strtolower(\'$1\')', > ), > $str > ); > } > echo "Completed in " . (microtime(true) - $start) . " Seconds\n"; > > So basically, it's comparing the old behavior (one call to preg_replace) > that you want to emulate, with what Nikita is suggesting. > > I ran it on 3v4l (http://3v4l.org/dRjtU) and the results were quite > surprising. I was expecting the first to be slightly slower than the > second. But the reality surprised me: > > Completed in 0.00076389312744141 Seconds Completed in 0.0012428760528564 > Seconds > > As it turns out, calling `preg_replace_callback()` multiple times is almost > 50% faster than using a single call to `preg_replace()`. > > It's likely due to the precompiled nature of closures, vs the compilation > happening multiple times at invocation in the preg_replace /e case. > > But it's still worth noting that switching from the /e style to a more > traditional preg_replace_callback implementation will get you a significant > boost in performance of that. > > Now, keep in mind, we're talking 0.000005 seconds saved per "execution" > (group of 6 replacements). So it's not likely to matter much or be worth > worrying about... > Hey: thanks for the benchmark, but please don't think it's useless just because it's monior PHP is a web program language, let's think about a high trafiic site, which get 100, 000, 000 pv perday. 100, 000, 000 * 0.0000005 = 500s perday and inefficent not always means performance only, in this case , you need to define various functions for different regexs if you use loop style. and do you prefer array_walk or foreach when you try to iteraterly process an array? thanks > > My $0.02 at least... > > Anthony > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67301 — Laruence — 2013-05-04T14:31:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67301 · In reply to: #67300 I made a RFC for this: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/second_arg_to_preg_callback thanks > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > […] > Hey: > thanks for the benchmark, but please don't think it's useless just > because it's monior > > PHP is a web program language, let's think about a high trafiic site, > which get 100, 000, 000 pv perday. > > 100, 000, 000 * 0.0000005 = 500s perday > > and inefficent not always means performance only, in this case , you > need to define various functions for different regexs if you use loop style. > > and do you prefer array_walk or foreach when you try to iteraterly > process an array? > > > thanks > > > […] > > > > -- > Laruence Xinchen Hui > http://www.laruence.com/ > -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/ --- ## #67302 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2013-05-04T14:33:31+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67302 · In reply to: #67300 > and inefficent not always means performance only, in this case , you > need to define various functions for different regexs if you use loop style. > > and do you prefer array_walk or foreach when you try to iteraterly > process an array? I certainly prefer foreach over array_walk/array_map because I think the resulting code is easier to read. It also happens to be faster to use foreach in every case I have ever tested. -Rasmus --- ## #67309 — Etienne Kneuss — 2013-05-05T13:23:40+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67309 · In reply to: #67301 > I made a RFC for this: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/second_arg_to_preg_callback > > Note that giving meaning to an extra argument in existing callbacks constitutes a small BC break in at least two cases: 1) function myhandyfunction($v, $arg = 42) { .. } preg_replace_callback([..., ...], "myhandyfunction", ..) here $arg will no longer be 42 after this change. 2) Most internal functions do not accept extra arguments, and thus will suddenly raise a notice if used as callbacks. It might be worth mentionning this in the RFC. > thanks > > > > > > > > […] > it's > > […] > almost > > […] > compilation > > […] > style. > > […] > > > > -- > Laruence Xinchen Hui > http://www.laruence.com/ > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch --- ## #67324 — Remi Collet — 2013-05-07T05:27:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67324 · In reply to: #67291 Le 04/05/2013 14:39, Laruence a écrit : > with this patch, preg_replace_callback will call user callback with two > arguments, the first one is the same, the second is the regex key if the > regex is an array or `NULL` if the regex is a string. Here is another example from a real case (Horde_Date) return preg_replace( array('/%b/e', '/%B/e', '/%C/e', '/%([-#]?)d/e', '/%D/e', '/%e/e', '/%([-#]?)H/e', '/%([-#]?)I/e', '/%([-#]?)m/e', '/%([-#]?)M/e', '/%n/', '/%p/e', '/%R/e', '/%([-#]?)S/e', '/%t/', '/%T/e', '/%x/e', '/%X/e', '/%y/e', '/%Y/', '/%%/'), array('$this->strftime(Horde_Nls::getLangInfo(constant(\'ABMON_\' . (int)$this->_month)))', '$this->strftime(Horde_Nls::getLangInfo(constant(\'MON_\' . (int)$this->_month)))', '(int)($this->_year / 100)', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_mday)', '$this->strftime(\'%m/%d/%y\')', 'sprintf(\'%2d\', $this->_mday)', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_hour)', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_hour == 0 ? 12 : ($this->_hour > 12 ? $this->_hour - 12 : $this->_hour))', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_month)', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_min)', "\n", '$this->strftime(Horde_Nls::getLangInfo($this->_hour < 12 ? `AM_STR` : PM_STR))', '$this->strftime(\'%H:%M\')', 'sprintf(\'%\' . (\'$1\' ? \'\' : \'02\') . \'d\', $this->_sec)', "\t", '$this->strftime(\'%H:%M:%S\')', '$this->strftime(Horde_Nls::getLangInfo(D_FMT))', '$this->strftime(Horde_Nls::getLangInfo(T_FMT))', 'substr(sprintf(\'%04d\', $this->_year), -2)', (int)$this->_year, '%'), $format); } Note, while I agree for this feature, must application / framework will have to be fixed, but also kept compatible with 5.3, 5.4, 5.5. Remi. --- ## #67325 — Stas Malyshev — 2013-05-07T06:02:58+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/67199#67325 · In reply to: #67324 Hi! > Here is another example from a real case (Horde_Date) Looks like the case of doing it wrong. In most cases it doesn't even need regexp, in others, generic regexp with post-parsing would probably be more efficient as this seems to do 20+ passes through the string. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227