Hi.
As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
defining that-
Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting_who
ps: it is really just a draft put together in like 5
2011/11/8 guilhermebla...@gmail.com guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
Ok... I promised to complete the RFC and here I am.
I wrapped the entire idea, PHP implementation of what I'm proposing all in
RFC.
If you're interested, feel free to review the document, highlight if I
missed something and
Hi:
I am writing a page to describe Zend MM,
https://wiki.php.net/internals/zend_mm
there is no doc about this before, I have to read the src codes,
so there might be some wrong, if you find some , plz feel free to
correct it.
thanks
--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/
Hi,
I'm fine with the most of the implementation. But I have some
suggestions to optimize it.
1. The interface should be named SplClassLoader and the register and
unregister methods should be removed.
It should be possible to define class loader implementations without
registering them as
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
defining that-
Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
improved.
I'm re-posting it for discussion before eventually commiting it.
The ternary operator always copies its second or third operand, which is
very
slow compared to
On 08/11/11 18:39, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:28 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Because there's no need to bring to C a single foreach.
Also, if you re-read the RFC, you'll see that SplClassLoader is
extendable for personalized developer needs,
On 09/11/11 11:24, Christian Kaps wrote:
Hi,
Hi Christian :-),
I'm fine with the most of the implementation. But I have some
suggestions to optimize it.
1. The interface should be named SplClassLoader and the register and
unregister methods should be removed.
It should be possible to
Hi Miroslav Arnaud,
On 09/11/11 12:51, Miroslav Kubelík wrote:
On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
improved.
I'm re-posting it for discussion before eventually commiting it.
The ternary operator always copies
Hi guys,
I am removing my vote due to a particularly annoying aspect of this
whole RFC/voting structure: the RFC is still in flux!
How on earth are we supposed to be able to vote yay/nay on something
if that something keeps changing, or is very poorly defined? I request
that the RFC itself be
I just want to comment on one of the points:
Maybe we could define different type of votes (language syntax change, adding
new feature/extensions, etc.) and define the who can vote for each of those.
* This could be a good middle-ground between allowing qa/documentation/web
people to vote on
Hi Miroslav!
Yes, the ternary patch fixes that problem too :)
Nikita
2011/11/9 Miroslav Kubelík kou...@php.net:
On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
improved.
I'm re-posting it for discussion before
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Will Fitch will.fi...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I have to say, I've never heard the argument, man, if there's one
thing I'd like to standardize in PHP, it'd definitely be autoloading
classes. No, indeed I believe this is a group of frameworks trying
to implement a
Rafael
This makes life as a PHP developer much easier and having the standard
valued by PHP by having a SplClassLoader that allows any library to not
need to implement a autolaoder if no framework is present allows for much
nicer plug and play interaction of libraries, less work for their
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:24:33 +0100, Nikita Popov
nikita@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Miroslav!
Yes, the ternary patch fixes that problem too :)
Nikita
Nice, thank all participants very much, Arnaud especially, very helpful
patch.
Maybe string case can be mentioned in the
On 9 November 2011 22:44, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am removing my vote due to a particularly annoying aspect of this
whole RFC/voting structure: the RFC is still in flux!
This is one of the reasons why I've voted -1: there's no way an RFC
should be changing this much (or at
I think that this isn't a good idea. The main reason for a [php-src]
vs. [php-doc et al.] distinction is that the php-src guys will be the
ones maintaining the code. (At least from what I heard this is the
main point.)
I have more argument than that, maybe there are others also:
- The core
Hi!
- I think it's too late in PHP 5.4's release cycle to be proposing
anything for 5.4.
Not talking about the merits of the loader, if it comes into 5.4, that
won't be 5.4.0. Unless we discover some very bad problem, 5.4 is going
into RC tomorrow, which means I will be extremely reluctant
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
- The core devs usually know the internal parts better than the others
contributors, so they can weight the changes better on the technical parts
(opening a can of worms...).
I think you are hitting another issue with voting
Hi!
To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be determined
through discussion before voting even starts.
It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote
is to see if the feature is needed/desired in the form that is proposed.
That doesn't mean
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be
determined
through discussion before voting even starts.
It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote is to
see if the
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:55 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nikita,
Thanks.
It's your option and I won't fight. But it seems my proposal is not yet
100%.
Some things I have either identified or people have reported.
1- Remove -register() and
Hi!
What I should have said is that in my eyes - as outlined in my other replies -
I don't see any compelling reasons why one should distinguish between php-src
contributors and the others.
Because the premise here that PHP contributors understand PHP, it's
ideas, limitations, history,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Rafael
This makes life as a PHP developer much easier and having the standard
valued by PHP by having a SplClassLoader that allows any library to not
need to implement a autolaoder if no framework is present allows
Whether you are purchasing a new subscription, renewing an old one, or
advertising with us all purchases allow you to choose one of many wonderful
holiday gifts.
It's our way of thanking you for your business.
Visit our Holiday Special Page and look around. There are some great gifts for
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rafael Dohms lis...@rafaeldohms.com.br wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
You sort of prove my point here, as you actually have your own
autoloader, which in case you are PSR compliant, you would not need,
you can
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rafael Dohms lis...@rafaeldohms.com.br
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not PSR compliant in either autoloader implementation or
Hi,
@RDohms
What you said is pretty valid. If you're not going to use it, you vote
against it?
You may not use it, but many others can. It's a true state.
@Anthony
I already heard your points many times. I know you're against it.
I also know the voting should be reset, but before the reset, I
Hi internals,
I won't enter on this thread of Who can vote, but I'll get around it
during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejected or it's still
pending. It's a long email, so take a seat and read carefully. I have
no means to hurt
On 11/09/2011 07:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
My short version of this entire email is very simple question. Is PHP
meritocracy based?
It is.
I want to highlight another RFC where I saw the before mentioned
meritocracy fallen into the cracks.
Hi!
tools' project leaders. By denying the voice of them is almost the
same as telling there's meritocracy only if you contribute with the
language internals.
Nobody's denying voice to anybody. Anybody who's interested can feel
free to come to the list and bring forward their arguments and
Hi!
This attitude only makes me lose a lot of time answering questions
instead of focusing on actual RFC stability. I want to propose
something stable, I do not want to be pressured about should the RFC
exist or not. It only delays the real voting results. What I can do to
address this?
I
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:01 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
I won't enter on this thread of Who can vote, but I'll get around it
during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejected or
33 matches
Mail list logo
