On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui <larue...@php.net> wrote: > Hey: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai <zxcvda...@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. > > > > > > > >> Any objections? > >> > >> > >> — > >> Best, > >> Wei Dai > >> > >> > > > > -- > Xinchen Hui > @Laruence > http://www.laruence.com/ >
