I think the problem there is that this syntax wouldn't support external
variables, and without them there's not much difference between that and
create_function.
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
What was the conclusion on Wez' patch from march [1]? The discussion
seemed to steer a bit off, on the di
On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:17 AM, rich gray wrote:
If this suggestion from Jani is supported then all I can say is WTF
a bunch of prima donnas you internals/core devs are ... You don't
want to listen to your users who are in most cases NOT technically
ignorant and are in the trenches using your
I have written a PEAR package (Console_CommandLine) which has been approved by
the pear team, here is the proposal:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=517
Thanks.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
> > You test are enormous, but than you anyway. :)
> > I've found and fixed the problem.
> >
> > Now your test suite is passed with the following results:
> >
> > PHP_5_3: Tests: 7706, Failures: 45, Errors:
What was the conclusion on Wez' patch from march [1]? The discussion
seemed to steer a bit off, on the discussion of scoping rules, but is
there any reason _not_ to implement Wez' patch in HEAD?
Even if it doesn't entirely replace create_function, it would be nice
to have as a compile-time alternat
