On Feb 3, 2015 1:08 PM, "Andrey Andreev" <n...@devilix.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:58 PM, François Laupretre <franc...@tekwire.net> wrote: > >> De : Andrey Andreev [mailto:n...@devilix.net] > >> > >> I seem to have missed the new parameter (and constants) addition > >> during the discussion ... sorry to say this, but that one would > >> probably fail the RFC. > > > > Mmh... I don't like the idea of adding a parameter but several people argued that we needed a way to control looping behavior, as the original idea was to loop through the replace array. > > > > But I am still hesitating. > > > > Instead of voting on the RFC, please tell me which behavior you prefer : > > > > - an options argument to decide on the looping behavior, > > - always stopping replacements when the replace array is exhausted > > - always looping > > > > The other options are too exotic to become the default behavior. > > > > Always looping, the other option is already covered by strtr(). > I'd like control over the behavior too, but that just makes the API really ugly. > > Cheers, > Andrey.
Or rather, should be covered by strtr(). Cheers, Andrey.
