[Validator] Rename constraint Size to Range
[Validator] Rename constraint CollectionSize to Size
[Validator] Merge the SizeLength into the Size constraint
[Validator] Update messages in Size constraint for consistancy
[Validator] Add english and french translation for Size messages
[Validator] Tweak expected types for exceptions in SizeValidator
[Validator] Fix CS in SizeValidator
[Validator] Update the ValidatorTypeGuesser
[Validator] Tweak SizeValidator
[Validator] Update CHANGELOG
[Validator] Complete previous CHANGELOG updates
[Form] Update validator type guesser
[Validator] Pluralize collection size english messages
[Validator] Pluralize Size french messages
Commits
-------
bdc21b4 [Validator] Add a base AbstractLoader
ead4908 [Validator] Some cleanup of the GraphWalker
23e15bb [Validator] Fix a bug in the ExecutionContext
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Fix/cleanup
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: [](http://travis-ci.org/vicb/symfony)
* d2100a27 has some fixes for the EC,
* 51769e03 has some cleanup in the graph walker,
* f9b3591c add an AbstractLoader (namespace aliases does not belong to FileLoaders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-07T08:32:40Z
@fabpot PR ready
Commits
-------
c195957 [Components] Tests/Autoloading fixes
Discussion
----------
Fix components
See #4141
----
This PR:
* configures each component to use composer to manage "dev" dependencies instead of env variables;
* adds phpunit configuration file on Filesystem component;
* fixes READMEs.
It's mergeable without any problems, but I would recommend to wait a fix in Composer in order to use `self.version` in `require`/`require-dev` sections.
Note: I kept `suggest` sections because it makes sense but this PR doesn't aim to provide useful explanations for each entry. It could be another PR, not that one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by willdurand at 2012-04-30T20:43:13Z
@fabpot I reviewed each component, one by one. Now `phpunit` always works, even if tests are skipped. A simple `composer install --dev` allows to run the complete test suite. Each commit is well separated from the others. I guess, everything is ok now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-30T20:47:00Z
Please squash, as it makes no sense to have the same commit for each component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-05-01T14:26:11Z
Can you squash your commits before I merge? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by willdurand at 2012-05-01T14:29:38Z
done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-05-01T15:48:25Z
It does not seem that the commits are squashed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by willdurand at 2012-05-01T15:54:08Z
done
* Switched to Composer to manage "dev" dependencies
* Fixed READMEs
* Excluded vendor in phpunit.xml.dist files
* Fixed message in bootstrap.php files
* Added autoloader for the component itself
Commits
-------
24bd8f4 Added missing dot to translation messages.
4bff221 Added missing dot to translation messages.
7454894 Added missing dot to translation messages.
6e90c50 Updated upgrade instructions.
7e21dd1 Added missing dot to translation messages.
Discussion
----------
Issue 3379
This should fix [issues 3379](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/3379)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-13T15:06:32Z
Your branch conflicts with master. Please rebase it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by umpirsky at 2012-04-13T19:11:54Z
@stof I tried to rebase, I'm not sure if I did everything right. Is it ok now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by umpirsky at 2012-04-13T19:12:06Z
@stof I tried to rebase, I'm not sure if I did everything right. Is it ok now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mvrhov at 2012-04-13T19:19:34Z
IMHO no, because there are commits from other people. Did you follow the [instructions](http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/code/patches.html#id1)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-13T19:36:53Z
@mvrhov commits from others ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by umpirsky at 2012-04-13T19:41:53Z
@stof There were some, so I reverted. Now I'm trying again following instructions from Symfony doc.
I come to this:
```
$ git push origin issue-3379
To git@github.com:umpirsky/symfony.git
! [rejected] issue-3379 -> issue-3379 (non-fast-forward)
error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:umpirsky/symfony.git'
To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected
Merge the remote changes (e.g. 'git pull') before pushing again. See the
'Note about fast-forwards' section of 'git push --help' for details.
```
And I don't know how to fix this. Any idea?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-13T19:43:45Z
@umpirsky when you rebase, it is logical to need to force the push
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by umpirsky at 2012-04-13T19:44:38Z
@stof I did `git push -f origin issue-3379`. I hope it's fixed now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by maoueh at 2012-04-13T20:39:34Z
@umpirsky seems better than last time I checked :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by umpirsky at 2012-04-13T20:43:04Z
@maoueh Is it good enough? :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by maoueh at 2012-04-13T20:51:27Z
@umpirsky At least, the rebase seems good enough :D As for the subject of the PR, I don't pronounce myself ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-13T20:53:23Z
you should probably squash the commits
Commits
-------
f9a486e [Validator] Added support for pluralization of the SizeLengthValidator
c0715f1 [FrameworkBundle], [TwigBundle] added support for form error message pluralization
7a6376e [Form] added support for error message pluralization
345981f [Validator] added support for plural messages
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Added support for plural error messages
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Todo: create translations for en and update others (FrameworkBundle)
[](http://travis-ci.org/hason/symfony)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011-05-14T20:41:01Z
@bschussek: What's your opinion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-09-04T13:14:29Z
@hason could you rebase your branch on top of master and update the PR ?
You also need to change the messages in the constraint that uses the pluralization to a pluralized format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-10-16T18:06:22Z
@hason ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-11-11T14:58:19Z
@hason ping again
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-12-12T20:39:10Z
@hason ping again. Can you update your PR ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2011-12-12T21:29:14Z
@stof I hope that I will update PR this week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-15T19:07:32Z
Looks good to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-02-02T17:28:54Z
@hason can you update this PR and squash commits, it conflicts with current master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T07:21:41Z
@stof, @canni Rebased.
What is the best solution for the translation of messages?
1. Change messages in the classes and all xliff files?
2. Keep messages in the classes and change all xliff files?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-09T08:19:41Z
The constraints contain the en message so you will need to modify them to update the message
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T08:55:55Z
I prefer second option. The Validator component should be decoupled from the Translation component. The constraints contain the en message which is also the key for Translation component. We should create validators.en.xlf in the FrameworkBundle for en message. I think that this is better solution. What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-04T02:22:02Z
@hason Please rebase your branch. It conflicts with master because of the move of the tests
@fabpot ping
Commits
-------
f617e02 [Validator] added less-strict email host verification
Discussion
----------
[Validator] added less-strict email host verification
uhhhhh, my first pull request :>. uhm... tell me if i did something wrong :)
#### Request info
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes... well,not really (i guess master branch is not passing - at least i didnt broke the email test)
Fixes the following tickets: #2827
#### Description
New checkHost attribute in email constraint will make the validator check for only one of MX, A or AAAA DNS resource records to verify it as a valid email address.
New checkHost attribute in email constraint will
make the validator check for only one of MX, A or AAAA
DNS resource records to verify it as a valid
email address.
Commits
-------
411a0cc [Validator] Added GroupSequenceProvider to changelog
815c769 [Validator] Renamed getValidationGroups to getGroupSequence
d84a2e4 [Validator] Updated test expectations
9f2310b [Validator] Fixed typos, renamed hasGroupSequenceProvider
e0d2828 [Validator] GroupSequenceProvider tests improved, configuration changed
c3b04a3 [Validator] Changed GroupSequenceProvider implementation
6c4455f [Validator] Added GroupSequenceProvider
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Added GroupSequenceProvider
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: 
As discussed in #3114 I implemented the "GroupSequenceProvider" pattern for the validator component. It allows the user to select certain validation groups based on the current state of an object. Here is an example:
/**
* @Assert\GroupSequenceProvider("UserGroupSequnceProvider")
*/
class User
{
/**
* @Assert\NotBlank(groups={"Premium"})
*/
public function getAddress();
public function hasPremiumSubscription();
}
class UserGroupSequenceProvider implements GroupSequenceProviderInterface
{
public function getValidationGroups($user)
{
if ($user->hasPremiumSubscription()) {
return array('User', 'Premium');
} else {
return array('User');
}
}
}
With this patch there are two mechanisms to define the group sequence now. Either you can use @GroupSequence to define a static order of validation groups or you can use @GroupSequenceProvider to create dynamic validation group arrays.
The ClassMetadata therefore has methods now which implement quite similar things. The question is whether it would make sense to interpret the static group sequence as a special case and create something like a DefaultGroupSequenceProvider or StaticGroupSequenceProvider which is assigned by default. This would cause a BC break inside the validator component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-28T13:39:54Z
I like the implementation, but I think we should differ a little bit from Java here.
1. `GroupSequenceProviderInterface` should be implemented by the domain classes themselves (`User`), not by a separate class.
2. As such, the parameter `$object` from `getValidationGroups($object)` can be removed
3. `ClassMetadata::setGroupSequenceProvider()` should accept a boolean to activate/deactivate this functionality. Also the check for the interface (does the underlying class implement it?) should be done here
Apart from that, special cases need to be treated:
* A definition of a group sequence and a group sequence provider in the same `ClassMetadata` should not be allowed. Either of them must not be set.
* Metadata loaders must take care of settings made by parent classes. If `Animal` is extended by `Dog`, `Animal` defines a group sequence (or group sequence provider) and `Dog` a group sequence provider (or group sequence), only the setting of `Dog` should apply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-01-28T21:25:37Z
Changes of the latest commit:
- GroupSequenceProviderInterface has to be implemented by the domain class
- The annotation/configuration options let the user define whether the provider is activated or not (is this neccessary at all?)
- An error is thrown if the user wants to use static group sequences and the provider simultaneously
At the moment neither the static group sequence nor the provider is inherited from parent classes or interfaces. I don't know if it would make sense to enable this feature. There could be problems if a user wants to define a static group sequence in the parent class and a sequence provider in the child class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-30T13:07:04Z
> There could be problems if a user wants to define a static group sequence in the parent class and a sequence provider in the child class.
In this case, the setting in the child class should override the setting of the parent class.
But we can leave this open for now. As it seems, [this issue is unresolved in Hibernate as well](https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/HV-467).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-01-30T22:54:41Z
Okay, finally I managed to upload the latest commit. If you got a bunch of notifications or so I'm sorry, but I had to revert some accidental changes in the commit :(
I've rewritten the tests and have removed the "active" setting in the XML configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-02-02T15:24:01Z
Okay, typos are fixed now and `hasGroupSequenceProvider` has been renamed to `isGroupSequenceProvider`. I also had to adjust some tests after the rebase with master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-03T09:25:19Z
Looks good.
@fabpot 👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-02-03T09:46:52Z
Can you add a note in the CHANGELOG before I merge? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-02-09T12:31:27Z
@fabpot done
A new ExecutionContext is now created everytime that GraphWalker::walkConstraint() is
launched. Because of this, a validator B launched from within a validator A can't break
A anymore by changing the context.
Because we have a new ExecutionContext for every constraint validation, there is no point
in modifying its state anymore. Because of this it is now immutable.
Commits
-------
92f820a Renamed registerConstraints to loadDynamicValidatorMetadata
dd12ff8 CS fix, getConstraints renamed
09c1911 [Validator] Improved dynamic constraints
54cb6e4 [Validator] Added dynamic constraints
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Dynamic constraints
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
By now the Validator component is based on a per-class configuration of
constraints, but in some cases it might be neccessary to add new constraints
dynamically at runtime.
This pull request adds a "ConstraintProviderInterface" to the Validator component. If an object is validated that implements this interface the method "getConstraints" is used to add dynamic constraints:
class User implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
protected $isPremium;
protected $paymentInformation;
public function getConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata)
{
if ($this->isPremium) {
$metadata->addPropertyConstraint('paymentInformation', new NotBlank());
}
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by alexandresalome at 2012-01-15T11:20:04Z
Related to #1151
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-01-16T09:22:28Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-16T12:32:44Z
I think this is a good addition. I think we still have a naming problem though. When constraints are loaded using a static method, the default name for the loader method is `loadValidatorMetadata`. Since the method for dynamic constraint loading is basically the same, I think the two names should be related.
Solution (1): Rename the method in your interface to `loadDynamicValidatorMetadata`. Ugly and long.
class MyClass implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
public static loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
public loadDynamicValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
}
Solution (2): Rename the default method name in `StaticMethodLoader` to `registerConstraints` and adjust the docs. Breaks BC.
class MyClass implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
public static registerConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
public registerDynamicConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
}
@fabpot: Are we allowed to break BC here? If not, we should probably stick to (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-01-16T12:36:14Z
I would prefer to not break BC if possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-01-16T15:25:46Z
So "loadDynamicValidatorMetadata" would be the best solution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by althaus at 2012-01-17T13:39:19Z
>So "loadDynamicValidatorMetadata" would be the best solution?
Sounds fine for me based on @bschussek's comment.
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #2779
Todo: -
Because PHP function `array_key_exists` is buggy, it works great with native
PHP `ArrayObject` instances, but hand written implementations of `ArrayAccess`
and `Traversable` objects will fail to work with `CollectionValidator`
Commits
-------
1e370d7 typo fix
93d8d44 added some more infos about Config
27efd59 added READMEs for the bridges
34fc866 cosmetic tweaks
d6af3f1 fixed README for Console
6a72b8c added basic README files for all components
Discussion
----------
added basic README files for all components and bridges
heavily based on http://fabien.potencier.org/article/49/what-is-symfony2 and the official Symfony2 documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jmikola at 2011/11/03 13:36:07 -0700
Great work. For syntax highlighting on the PHP snippets, you could add "php" after the three backticks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/03 13:41:29 -0700
done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stealth35 at 2011/11/03 13:49:31 -0700
Nice job, but you also need to add `<?php`
ex :
``` php
<?php
use Symfony\Component\DomCrawler\Crawler;
$crawler = new Crawler();
$crawler->addContent('<html><body><p>Hello World!</p></body></html>');
print $crawler->filter('body > p')->text();
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/03 13:56:57 -0700
done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ericclemmons at 2011/11/03 19:57:57 -0700
@lsmith77 Well done! This makes consumption of individual components that much easier, *especially* now that `composer.json` files have been added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/04 01:18:23 -0700
ok .. fixed the issues you mentioned @fabpot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/11 15:00:27 -0800
@fabpot anything else left? seems like an easy merge .. and imho there is considerable benefit for our efforts to spread the word about the components with this PR merged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by drak at 2011/11/11 18:54:13 -0800
You know, it might be a nice idea to put a link to the documentation for each component if there is some at symfony.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/12 00:59:14 -0800
i did that in some. but i might have missed a few places.
On 12.11.2011, at 03:54, Drak <reply@reply.github.com> wrote:
> You know, it might be a nice idea to put a link to the documentation for each component if there is some at symfony.com
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/2561#issuecomment-2715762
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by breerly at 2011/11/21 10:28:36 -0800
Pretty excited with this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by dbu at 2011/11/24 00:02:50 -0800
is there anything we can help with to make this ready to be merged?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/12/18 02:39:23 -0800
@fabpot: seriously .. if you are not going to deliver something "better" and don't provide a reason what is wrong with this .. then its beyond frustrating. i obviously do not claim that these README's are perfect (and certainly still no replacement for proper documentation), but I do claim that in their current form they are a radical step forward to potential users of the Symfony2 components.
Commits
-------
cd24fb8 change explode's limit parameter based on known variable content
b3cc270 minor optimalisations for explode
Discussion
----------
[FrameworkBundle][CssSelector][HttpFoundation][HttpKernel] [Security][Validator] Minor optimizations for "explode" function
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
I added limit parameter in some places, where it may be usefull. I did not check the context of what values may have been exploded. So to not break anything, I added +1 to limit parameter.
If you find out that in some places limit (or limit+1) is not important or meaningless, write a comment please and I will fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/07 06:56:49 -0800
Adding +1 just to be sure to not break anything is clearly something we won't do. What is the benefit of doing that anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/07 13:50:24 -0800
The main idea of making this PR was to notify about some places that may run faster with just adding one parameter to explode function.
If in code is someting like: ```list($a, $b) = explode(':', $s);```
Function ```explode``` will create n-items (depends on ```$s```), but we need in code only the first two items. There is no reason to let ```explode``` create more items in memory that are NEVER used in our code. The limit parameter is there for these situations, so let's use it.
I know that it is microoptimization and may look unimportant, but we are writing a framework - so people expect that code will be as fast as possible without this kind of mistakes.
As I've noticed above, I know that +1 is not ideal solution, but the fastest without debugging the code. I expect that someone (with good knowledge of that code) will look at it and write in comments if variable may contain 1 comma (dot or someting on what is doing the explode) or maybe 2 in some situations or more.
Anyway, +1 will not break anything, because same items are created as it is now, but no unnecessary item is created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/07 23:14:59 -0800
I'm +1 for adding the number to avoid problems but I'm -1 on the optimization side of things as it won't optimize anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2011/12/08 12:46:49 -0800
*.. The main idea of making this PR was to notify about some places that **may** run faster ..*
I am also unsure the optimization is really an optimization, care to benchmark (with meaningful inputs)? As for the limit+1 thing, why would you want to +1 it? The number of ``list`` arguments should always reflect the ``limit`` parameter, no?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/08 23:11:34 -0800
@helmer please try this simple benchmark:
```
<?php
header('Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8');
define('COUNT', 10000);
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc:dddddddddddddddddddddd:eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:fffffffffffffffffffffffffff';
$start = microtime(true);
for ($i = 0; $i < COUNT; $i++) {
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string);
}
$end = microtime(true)-$start;
echo 'without limit: '.$end."\n";
$start = microtime(true);
for ($i = 0; $i < COUNT; $i++) {
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 2);
}
$end = microtime(true)-$start;
echo 'with limit: '.$end."\n";
```
My results are:
```
without limit: 0.057228803634644
with limit: 0.028676986694336
```
That is 50% difference (with APC enabled). Of course the result depends on the length of source string and if it's too short, the difference may be none or very very small. That's why I said, that it **may** run faster and is just a micro optimization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/08 23:18:12 -0800
@helmer And why +1? It depends on a code:
```
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc';
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 2);
var_dump($a, $b);
```
and
```
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc';
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 3);
var_dump($a, $b);
```
gives different results. That's why the content of the variable must be known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2011/12/09 00:08:28 -0800
@pulzarraider Thanks for the benchmark, seems like a gain enough. Although, we are more likely having a scenario of:
``explode(':', 'a🅱️c')`` vs ``explode(':', 'a🅱️c', 3)`` with a ``COUNT`` of 10, where the difference is not even in microseconds anymore :)
The limit addition alters the behaviour though, ie suddenly you can define a controller [logical name](http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html#controller-string-syntax) as ´´AcmeBlogBundle:Blog:show:something``, and things go downhill from there on.
All that aside, I'm +1 for setting the limit to the exact number of ``list`` parameters, but certainly not number+1, this is just too wtfy (as you said, this was a safety thing, but I reckon for this PR to be merged it needs to be +0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by drak at 2011/12/09 08:28:58 -0800
Overall `list()` is ugly as it's not very explicit. Even though it would mean extra lines, it's better to `explode()` then explicitly assign variables:
```
$parts = explode(':', $foo);
$name = $parts[0];
$tel = $parts[1];
```
`list()` is one of those bad relics from the PHP past...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/11 10:07:47 -0800
@drak: why is `list` not explicit? It is in fact as explicit as the more verbose syntax you propose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/11 13:08:50 -0800
@drak: I agree with @fabpot. In speech of benchmarks ```list``` is faster then using a helper variable.
@fabpot, @helmer I've changed explode's limit to be correct (without +1) and removed some changes from this PR, where I can't find out what the content of variable may be. Unit tests pass, so I think it's ready for merge.
