[RFC][DISCUSSION] Add preg_replace_callback_array function

Hey:

Hey:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowburn@gmail.com
wrote:

Hi internals,

The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
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! :)

Could you add a paragraph or two explaining the reasons for choosing this
particular proposal?
Some examples of what I would like to read:

• why we can't do preg_replace_callback($array_of_regexes,
  $array_of_callbacks, $subject)
  array() also could be a valid callback.. (array("clasname", "methodname")).
• why not preg_replace_callback($array_of_regex_to_callback_pairs,
  $subject)
  there are also $limit, $count argument could be used.
• why not pass the regex used to the callback, as per Laruence's earlier
  RFC
  bc break..(change the callback's signature)

And give a few links to historical discussions in the same sort of area?
E.g Laruence's RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/second_arg_to_preg_callback
and
its discussion thread (http://php.markmail.org/thread/qwiyq5o2vwlbdczq).

thanks

In case my earlier message wasn't clear, I was asking for the RFC itself to
be padded out with those sorts of details. The reason being, many (most)
people won't be already familiar with the surrounding discussions that have
happened previously, or the reasons for the potentially strange-seeming
design choices made in this RFC.
hmm, yeah, it's better to have these in the RFC.

I just replied in case Wei Dai is not familar with these reasons

thanks

Any objections?

—
Best,
Wei Dai

--
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/

--
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/

Hi Peter:

Sorry to reply late, because the GFW, I can’t access *.google.com at home.

Hey:

Hi internals,

The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
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! :)

Could you add a paragraph or two explaining the reasons for choosing this
particular proposal?
Some examples of what I would like to read:

• why we can't do preg_replace_callback($array_of_regexes,
  $array_of_callbacks, $subject)

array() also could be a valid callback.. (array("clasname", "methodname")).

• why not preg_replace_callback($array_of_regex_to_callback_pairs,
  $subject)

there are also $limit, $count argument could be used.

• why not pass the regex used to the callback, as per Laruence's earlier
  RFC

bc break..(change the callback's signature)

And give a few links to historical discussions in the same sort of area?
E.g Laruence's RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/second_arg_to_preg_callback and
its discussion thread (http://php.markmail.org/thread/qwiyq5o2vwlbdczq).

thanks

I accept, and I will be add these details in RFC.

In case my earlier message wasn't clear, I was asking for the RFC itself to be padded out with those sorts of details. The reason being, many (most) people won't be already familiar with the surrounding discussions that have happened previously, or the reasons for the potentially strange-seeming design choices made in this RFC.
Thanks for the suggestion. :)

Any objections?

—
Best,
Wei Dai

--
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/

—
Wei Dai

Hey:

Hi internals,

Hi internals,

The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
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’ve sent this mail for four days, I don’t 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..

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 <std_disclaimer.h>

--

--
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/