Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
Cheers
Joe
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
2nd week in a row that we get a lot of new pull requests. Any thoughts
about how can we process them faster (especially bug fixes)? Other projects
use 2 reviewers before commit or similar methods.
Total requests: 77
New:
#455 https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/455 Fix missing symbol
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
I am having a hard time picturing a real-world use-case for this.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
2013/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
I am having a hard time picturing a real-world use-case for
On 23 September 2013 10:44, Sebastian Krebs krebs@gmail.com wrote:
2013/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes,
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
This RFC misses one very important part: an argument for why this
feature is useful. Syntax changes are likely to be extremely contentious
and without convincingreasoning *why* we need this, we shouldn't even
On 23 September 2013 11:00, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 23 September 2013 10:39, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
On 23 September 2013 10:39, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
I am having a hard time picturing a
2013/9/23 Derick Rethans der...@php.net
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
This RFC misses one very important part: an argument for why this
feature is useful. Syntax changes are likely to be extremely contentious
and without
Le 23/09/2013 10:39, Rasmus Lerdorf a écrit :
On 09/22/2013 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
I am having a hard time picturing a real-world use-case for
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals!
I started the vote on the variadic functions RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/variadics#vote
The vote on the variadics RFC ended with 36 votes in favor and one against,
as such the RFC is accepted.
On 09/23/2013 07:39 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
Cheers
Joe
Thanks chaps ...
I am having a hard time picturing a real-world use-case for this.
Hi Joe,
what about serialization for those classes?
cu,
Lars
Am 23.09.2013 um 08:39 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous classes,
patch included.
Cheers
Joe
On 09/23/2013 02:43 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Joe,
what about serialization for those classes?
cu,
Lars
Am 23.09.2013 um 08:39 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of
Am 23.09.2013 16:06 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
On 09/23/2013 02:43 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
what about serialization for those classes?
Same as any other object; what you are creating is normal classes without
a (declared) name, nothing about the objects functionality has differs
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I removed already?)
Anyone familiar with this?
-- Forwarded message --
From: internals-h...@lists.php.net
Date: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Subject: ezmlm warning
To:
I got the same thing. It looks like some mail is being rejected by Gmail:
Remote host said: 550 5.6.0 Lone CR or LF in headers (see RFC2822 section 2.2)
On Sep 23, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Madara Uchiha mad...@tchizik.com wrote:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it?
2013/9/23 Joe Watkins krak...@php.net
On 09/23/2013 02:43 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Joe,
what about serialization for those classes?
cu,
Lars
Am 23.09.2013 um 08:39 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
Morning All,
Hi,
On Sep 23, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
On 09/23/2013 02:43 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Joe,
what about serialization for those classes?
cu,
Lars
Same as any other object; what you are creating is normal classes without
a (declared) name, nothing about the
I received this message also
--
t: @garoevans
l: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/garoevans/
m: +44 7718 617228
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 08:07:36AM -0700, Tyler Sommer wrote:
I got the same thing. It looks like some mail is being rejected by Gmail:
Remote host said: 550 5.6.0 Lone CR or LF in headers (see RFC2822 section
2.2)
I also got the same thing -- I run my own MTA.
Bad email is being sent.
I
Recieved the same message.
kindly,
nvartolomei
On Monday, September 23, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I removed already?)
Anyone familiar with this?
--
Got this notification as well, I assumed it was a one-time error.
Maybe someone from internals-owner@ should take a look at what's going on... (=
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I received this as well. I'm also on gmail.
Am 23.09.2013 um 17:06 schrieb Madara Uchiha mad...@tchizik.com:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I removed already?)
Anyone familiar with this?
-- Forwarded
On Sep 23, 2013, at 17:30, Georg Hubinger g...@devnique.net wrote:
I received this as well. I'm also on gmail.
Am 23.09.2013 um 17:06 schrieb Madara Uchiha mad...@tchizik.com:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I
What about UNserialize then?
I don't see any way to handle this sensibly, but I also don't regard this as
a
problem, because that's not what these anonymous classes are for. If you
want
something that can be unserialised into a thing with methods then logically
you
know what it is ahead of time,
Same here - also using gmail
On Sep 23, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Camilo Sperberg unrea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 23, 2013, at 17:30, Georg Hubinger g...@devnique.net wrote:
I received this as well. I'm also on gmail.
Am 23.09.2013 um 17:06 schrieb Madara Uchiha mad...@tchizik.com:
What
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Madara Uchiha mad...@tchizik.com wrote:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I removed already?)
Anyone familiar with this?
[..]
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
On 09/23/2013 07:39 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
Cheers
Joe
Serialization:
As I have said, serialization does work, and unserialization does
Everyone,
As a lurker i rarely have anthing to say, but this time i'd like to make an
exception: I see some usability for this type of usage, but would like to
disagree on the extra class...
My usage would be more in line with JSON way of passing around objects...
But i'd hate to see yet another
Do you think this is might be a gmail related issue? Or should i just
ignore it?
No gmail issue. Same issue for my GMX account.
It just looks like a message is broken, see
http://news.php.net/php.internals/69050 (Takes about 15s to load)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Same here, using gmail.
Seems i got 69050 waiting (but i can get only 100 per reply)
Do you think this is might be a gmail related issue? Or should i just
ignore it?
On 23 September 2013 19:24, Martin Amps ph...@rtin.so wrote:
Same here - also using gmail
On Sep 23, 2013, at 8:47 AM,
On 23 September 2013 08:03, Chris Wright daveran...@php.net wrote:
To summarize how I think this should be handled: Serialisation results in a
stdClass, unserialisation cannot be done because if you want it you're
already
Doing It WrongT.
To me, serialising successfully would indicate that
On 23/09/2013 16:06, Madara Uchiha wrote:
What does this mean?
Is this a one-time error? Did anyone else get it? (Do you even get
this message, or was I removed already?)
Anyone familiar with this?
I received this, I'm on Namecheap Open-Xchange email hosting for my
domain (ajf.me).
I was
Hi internals!
I'd like to finish up the argument unpacking proposal (
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/argument_unpacking).
The main open question (or at least the focus of the discussion) seems to
be whether to allow multiple unpacks and trailing arguments.
An example of multiple unpacks is the bind()
Hi Joe,
Am 23.09.2013 um 19:22 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
[...]
As I have said, serialization does work, and unserialization does work ...
Classes do have unique names, so as long as the entry is present upon
unserialize you will get the object you expect ... if the entry is
Hi Nikita,
Am 23.09.2013 um 21:33 schrieb Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com:
[...]
An example of trailing arguments are array intersections and diffs using a
custom compare function:
array_uintersect(...$arrays, $compare);
array_udiff(...$arrays, $compare);
// also
On 23/09/2013 20:33, Nikita Popov wrote:
The main open question (or at least the focus of the discussion) seems to
be whether to allow multiple unpacks and trailing arguments.
I'm not sure I like the idea of multiple unpacks, were we to implement
named parameters (if you did f(...(['a' =
Hi,
Serialization:
As I have said, serialization does work, and unserialization does work
...
Classes do have unique names, so as long as the entry is present upon
unserialize you will get the object you expect ... if the entry is not
present unserialization will fail silently.
The
2013/9/23 Kingsquare.nl - Robin Speekenbrink ro...@kingsquare.nl
Everyone,
As a lurker i rarely have anthing to say, but this time i'd like to make an
exception: I see some usability for this type of usage, but would like to
disagree on the extra class...
My usage would be more in line with
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 23/09/2013 20:33, Nikita Popov wrote:
The main open question (or at least the focus of the discussion) seems to
be whether to allow multiple unpacks and trailing arguments.
I'm not sure I like the idea of multiple
2013/9/23 Joe Watkins krak...@php.net
On 09/23/2013 07:39 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**anonymous_classeshttps://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous
classes, patch included.
Cheers
On 23/09/2013 21:19, Nikita Popov wrote:
That's a general issue that's not really related to multiple unpacks. It
could just as well happen without any unpacks at all ( f(a = 'a', a =
'b') ) or when unpacking an iterator (which is allowed to have duplicate
keys).
Fair enough. However, I'm a
-Original Message-
From: Lars Strojny [mailto:l...@strojny.net]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 9:37 PM
To: Nikita Popov
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Argument unpacking - Multiple unpacks and trailing
arguments
Hi Nikita,
Am 23.09.2013 um 21:33 schrieb Nikita
Hi all,
It's been a whole from the discussion.
I setup vote for RFC: Change crypt() behavior w/o salt.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/crypt_function_salt
If I missed something, please let me know.
Thank you.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
Hi all,
There isn't any good counter measure session hijack.
However, we can regenerate session ID if IP address has changed.
Hijacked users might notice that they have been logged out if session
ID is regenerated by attackers. Therefore, users have slight chance
to notice that they were under
Hey:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
There isn't any good counter measure session hijack.
However, we can regenerate session ID if IP address has changed.
Hijacked users might notice that they have been logged out if session
ID is
On Sep 23, 2013 6:42 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
It's been a whole from the discussion.
I setup vote for RFC: Change crypt() behavior w/o salt.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/crypt_function_salt
If I missed something, please let me know.
Thank you for pushing this RFC so
When you have a group of front-end termination points in a pool, proxying
requests off to hundreds of machines for thousands of applications, tying a
session to any IP is a headache. IMO, sessions are supposed to be tied to
users, not any given inbound IP that can, and may, jump between different
Hi All,
Firstly, let me know if this is particularly spammy/inappropriate for this
list.
I just wanted to get some feedback on a long-time feature request (2011)
about treating PUT the same as POST in terms of re-using the existing form
parser. See https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55815 for
50 matches
Mail list logo
