[00:18:30] <petan>	@infobot-off
[00:18:30] <dbbot-wm>	petan: Invalid arguments
[00:18:30] <wm-bot>	Infobot disabled
[00:18:35] <petan>	:o
[00:18:38] *petan 	hides
[00:37:35] <AaronSchulz>	maplebed: http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack@lists.launchpad.net/msg03330.html
[00:37:37] <AaronSchulz>	"* Object COPY requests now always copy the newest object they can find." \o/
[17:28:23] <Mehran>	Hi to all
[17:28:38] <Mehran>	I want some help about an technical issue
[17:28:47] <Mehran>	can anyone help me?
[17:36:55] <multichill>	Mehran: Don't ask if you can ask, just ask your question and wait for someone to respond.
[20:13:35] <RoanKattouw>	RAAAH
[20:13:36] <RoanKattouw>	Fatal error: Arrays are not allowed in class constants
[20:13:42] <RoanKattouw>	Screw you PHP
[20:34:37] <apergos>	hahaha
[20:35:04] <apergos>	I wonder how mediawiki would be in perl :-P
[20:40:10] <^demon>	Reminds me of something I saw on php-internals. Someone's proposing constant dereferencing.
[20:40:21] <^demon>	So something like "foo"[1] would work
[20:41:10] <RoanKattouw>	OK, but...
[20:41:12] <RoanKattouw>	Why
[20:41:25] <^demon>	Not really sure what practical purpose it serves.
[20:41:28] <RoanKattouw>	Maybe self::FOO[1] would be useful
[20:41:33] <RoanKattouw>	Or even self::FOO[$n] where $n is variable
[20:41:38] <RoanKattouw>	But they're probably not gonna do that
[20:41:55] <RoanKattouw>	It's annoying that the PHP grammar does not allow $foo->bar()[0]
[20:42:01] <RoanKattouw>	Or f()[0] for that matter
[20:42:03] <^demon>	Well if self::FOO is a string, the [] syntax should work for accessing the character index.
[20:42:12] <^demon>	f()[] is fixed in 5.4
[20:42:18] <RoanKattouw>	Oh, yay
[20:42:25] <RoanKattouw>	Yeah, self:FOO can't be an array (/me cries)
[20:43:33] <^demon>	I want to say they also added constructor dereferencing too, so something like $foo = (new Foo)->bar(); would work.
[20:43:46] <^demon>	Or maybe it was just discussed and not added.
[20:50:10] <RoanKattouw>	Heh, sometimes I think I know PHP too well
[20:50:38] <RoanKattouw>	You can probably tell what the bug is just by reading this test failure http://pastebin.com/1533fZXF
[20:53:26] <^demon>	Did you use + with an array?
[20:59:17] <RoanKattouw>	No, that's a rabbit hole I'm only getting into now
[20:59:26] <RoanKattouw>	It's isset vs array_key_exists in the validation function
[21:04:49] <^demon>	Ah, that was my second guess.