John, > Thanks...and aw crap. I hate feeling like I shut the door on something.
Not at all. I don't feel bad about this in the least. Yes, I would have liked to have gotten it in, but I want a good solution before I want mine. So I'm absolutely willing to withdraw this RFC, as it does have issues. And it's not really shutting the door. It's moving a roadblock over so that another (hopefully better) proposal can take its place... > Let's make sure we can salvage as much as possible here: > 1. The structure of the patch looked like it was reusable regardless of > whether the final syntax used a typename of a cast, right? Let's not lose > that. Yeah, there was some in there that I definitely learned from. Including that the casting logic in the core is really in bad shape (it's everywhere!). > 2. Examining parameters from this perspective gave some good insight into the > behavior of the system when implicitly converting inputs. Oh, doing the RFC and the patch definitely had value. It's not like it's lost effort (and the reference is on the wiki still). And I'm glad I did a finalized patch, since it showed that some API change (on C level) would be necessary (namely the argument parsing function, to accept a double-pointer instead of a single one). > I'm sorry for not raising the concerns well enough earlier. You did. We just didn't connect and understand each other (or I didn't understand you) earlier. But that's behind. Let's move up and on... So, that leaves the question: where to go next... (I have a somewhat radical proposal that I'd like to make to list that's somewhat releated, but I'm going to think it out first before posting)... Thanks again, Anthony -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
