On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
>> Right now strtr('anything', 'anything', '') === 'anything', which
>> means that anyone relying on this behavior is doing something strange
>> and dumb imo, doing a function call for nothing.
>
> How is relying on by-design behavior that
> Right now strtr('anything', 'anything', '') === 'anything', which
> means that anyone relying on this behavior is doing something strange
> and dumb imo, doing a function call for nothing.
How is relying on by-design behavior that turns the call into a no-op
(instead of wrapping the call in a
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Right now strtr('anything', 'anything', '') === 'anything', which
>> means that anyone relying on this behavior is doing something strange
>> and dumb imo, doing a function call for nothing. We could maybe say
>
> It does not matter if you a
Hi!
On 6/21/11 5:14 PM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
Right now strtr('anything', 'anything', '') === 'anything', which
means that anyone relying on this behavior is doing something strange
and dumb imo, doing a function call for nothing. We could maybe say
It does not matter if you approve or disappr
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>> > Here is the next one.
>> >
>> > I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters of
>> > a
>> > string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd gla
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Here is the next one.
> >
> > I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters of a
> > string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd glad to
> > see this change also in 5.4.
>
> This is a BC break, if I u
Hi!
On 6/20/11 10:56 AM, Robert Eisele wrote:
Stas,
Why should it be a BC break? Empty strings are not considered, in any mode
or what feature of strtr() did I miss?
Because now strtr("passion", "os", "") returns different result.
Combined with the fact that you already can do it with array sy
Stas,
Why should it be a BC break? Empty strings are not considered, in any mode
or what feature of strtr() did I miss?
Gustavo,
does you not constradict yourself, when you say it's already available in
the one mode and in the other it shouldn't be? What about the intuitive and
nosy developers tha
Em Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:32:30 +0100, Robert Eisele
escreveu:
$demise = strtr("passion", "os", "");
This is a very bad idea for several reasons:
- strtr already does this with:
$demise = strtr("passion", array("o" => "", "s" => ""));
- it's a BC break
- adds a *third* operation mode to st
Hi!
Here is the next one.
I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters of a
string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd glad to
see this change also in 5.4.
This is a BC break, if I understand it correctly, so I don't think it is
a good idea
2011/6/20 Derick Rethans
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Robert Eisele wrote:
>
> > Here is the next one.
> >
> > I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters
> of a
> > string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd glad
> to
> > see this change also in 5.4
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Robert Eisele wrote:
> Here is the next one.
>
> I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters of a
> string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd glad to
> see this change also in 5.4.
Do you mean that (the currently document
Here is the next one.
I think it's quite intuitive to use strtr() to remove single characters of a
string, too, instead of using many str_replace($str, $chr, ""). I'd glad to
see this change also in 5.4.
Additionally, I've removed the lookup-table generation as gcc doesn't
optimize this away.
Ro
13 matches
Mail list logo
