[RFC][DISCUSSION] Add preg_replace_callback_array function

> On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net> wrote: > >> Hey: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai <zxcvdavid@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/ >>

> > > On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui <laruence@php.net (mailto:laruence@php.net)> wrote: > > Hey: > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com (mailto:petercowburn@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai <zxcvdavid@gmail.com (mailto:zxcvdavid@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/ >

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:46:58PM +1100, Pierre Joye wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Wei Dai <zxcvdavid@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi internals, >> >> 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! :) >> >> Any objections? >> > >> > I’ve sent this mail for four days, I don’t know if this RFC needs a vote. >> > If you guys have no objections on this, please review the code and merge it, >> > thanks. >> >> Nice job, i like the idea. >> >> I am not sure about a RFC or not. It somehow looks like a sane >> replacement for something we killed (with good reasons). >> >> Let see what the other think :) > > I used s/something/code/ge in a perl script that I wrote a few days ago. Very > useful. It would have been a lot more work to do it another way. > > So: +1 to the ability to do this, regardless of what mechanism is eventually chosen.

> > -- > Alain Williams > Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. > +44 (0) 787 668 0256 http://www.phcomp.co.uk/ > Parliament Hill Computers Ltd. Registration Information: http://www.phcomp.co.uk/contact.php > #include <std_disclaimer.h> > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php