Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

Am 10.05.2021 um 23:51 schrieb Kamil Tekiela: Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? Please: no. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

Hi! No I don't agree.  People can do whatever is convenient for them.  Some will top-post; Some will bottom-post and some will inter-post.  By interpost I mean people will try to respond to a post on a point by point basis. The thing is when you alone, you're free to do what is convenient

[PHP-DEV] Re: Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

Kamil Tekiela wrote on 5/10/21 16:51:> People [...] read from top to bottom. This is precisely the reason for bottom-posting. Everything is in a nice, linear, top-to-bottom progression, with all the context appearing in a logical order. Cheers, Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Property accessors

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 4th, 2021 at 6:33 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote: > Hi internals, > > I'd like to present an RFC for property accessors: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/property_accessors > > Property accessors are like __get() and __set(), but for a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

That would be great! I had an unpleasant experience with this "rule". You start disagreeing with someone regarding an RFC and suddenly it becomes a reason to be called out. Not to mention that when I was pointed to the internal rules and guidelines, bottom posting is not explicitly listed as a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

On 10 May 2021 22:51:49 BST, Kamil Tekiela wrote: >Hi Internals, > >Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? No. cheers, Derick -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

On Mon, May 10, 2021, at 5:08 PM,  Good Guy  wrote: > On 10/05/2021 23:00, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > Please do not change - keep bottom posting. > > > No I don't agree.  People can do whatever is convenient for them.  Some > will top-post; Some will bottom-post and some will inter-post. 

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

On 10/05/2021 23:00, Alain D D Williams wrote: Please do not change - keep bottom posting. No I don't agree.  People can do whatever is convenient for them.  Some will top-post; Some will bottom-post and some will inter-post.  By interpost I mean people will try to respond to a post on a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:51:49PM +0100, Kamil Tekiela wrote: > Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? Please do not change - keep bottom posting. > Bottom-posting makes reading the thread much more difficult too. I really find top posting highly confusing. Bottom (or rather interleaved)

Re: [PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

No. Outlook is not modern. No. That's not the point, the missing context is. Sorry, could not resist ;-) - Chris > Am 10.05.2021 um 23:51 schrieb Kamil Tekiela : > > Hi Internals, > > Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? > > Almost all new contributors fall into this trap and reply to a

[PHP-DEV] Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

Hi Internals, Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? Almost all new contributors fall into this trap and reply to a thread by top-posting, only to get chastised by someone else on the list. It's really difficult to remember to delete the default reply. Mail clients don't make it easy for us;

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bugsnet

On 10.05.2021 at 17:10, Nikita Popov wrote: > * As was already mentioned, there's no support for security issues, so > we'd retain bugs.php.net for that purpose, at least for the time being. But even if bugsnet would no longer be required to file any new tickets, please keep it in read-only

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 01:22:46PM -0500, Ben Ramsey wrote: > Hossein Baghayi wrote on 5/10/21 13:01: > > On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:59, Larry Garfield wrote: > > > > > 1) Please don't top-post. > > > > > > > > Sorry for top-posting. Didn't know what it means :), also it was kind of my > > first

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hossein Baghayi wrote on 5/10/21 13:01: > On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:59, Larry Garfield wrote: > >> 1) Please don't top-post. >> >> > Sorry for top-posting. Didn't know what it means :), also it was kind of my > first reply to mailing list.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:59, Larry Garfield wrote: > 1) Please don't top-post. > > 2) The reason is that the old way doesn't provide any way to populate them > on construction. The pattern of "assign the arg to the prop in the > constructor" is stupendously common, and promotion makes it

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Hossein Baghayi wrote: > If constructor is supposed to be empty then why are we even bothering with > construction promoting style? Why aren't we sticking to the old way of > defining properties? > Are there any advantages to using construction promoting style? >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:56 AM Marco Pivetta wrote: > > Another point to be made here, as far as my interpretation of PSR-12, the > > curly braces occupy two lines for methods with multiline arguments. So > for > > whoever follows PSR-12, it's more like this, with brackets just dangling > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

If constructor is supposed to be empty then why are we even bothering with construction promoting style? Why aren't we sticking to the old way of defining properties? Are there any advantages to using construction promoting style? I mean sure we could have this: class Foo { public function

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Chase Peeler wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:31 AM Guilliam Xavier > wrote: > > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks > > > like

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bugsnet

On 10/05/2021 16:10, Nikita Popov wrote: Did I miss anything else that bugs.php.net does? The biggest difference I see between GH Issues and every other issue tracker I've ever seen is pre-defined fields. Labels can broadly do the same job, but they feel very different

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bugsnet

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:29 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > Hi Joe, > > > We have a spam problem on bugsnet > > I would snarkily say "maybe accept the PRs from people wanting to work > on it?", but I realise that ignores the underlying problem, that PHP > lacks people. And particularly lacks people who

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:31 AM Guilliam Xavier wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks > > like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small, > > cosmetic

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bugsnet

On 10.05.2021 at 15:39, Andreas Heigl wrote: > Hey All > > Am 10.05.21 um 14:44 schrieb Alexander Kurilo via internals: >> On 09/05/2021 09:48, Joe Watkins wrote: >>> Morning internals, >>> >>> We have a spam problem on bugsnet, it's not a new problem. Nikita had to >>> waste time deleting 20 odd

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bugsnet

Le 09/05/2021 à 08:48, Joe Watkins a écrit : Having moved our workflow to github, now seems to be the time to seriously consider retiring bugsnet for general use, and using the tools that are waiting for us - Github Issues. Please NO This mean we will drop ownership on all data and history

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bugsnet

Hey All Am 10.05.21 um 14:44 schrieb Alexander Kurilo via internals: > On 09/05/2021 09:48, Joe Watkins wrote: >> Morning internals, >> >> We have a spam problem on bugsnet, it's not a new problem. Nikita had to >> waste time deleting 20 odd messages from bugsnet yesterday and this is a >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bugsnet

Hi Joe, > We have a spam problem on bugsnet I would snarkily say "maybe accept the PRs from people wanting to work on it?", but I realise that ignores the underlying problem, that PHP lacks people. And particularly lacks people who can dedicate time to understanding, reviewing and saying no to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bugsnet

On 09/05/2021 09:48, Joe Watkins wrote: Morning internals, We have a spam problem on bugsnet, it's not a new problem. Nikita had to waste time deleting 20 odd messages from bugsnet yesterday and this is a common, daily occurrence. We clearly don't have time for this. Quite aside from spam

[PHP-DEV] Re: RFC Karma

On 10.05.2021 at 12:22, Michael Maroszek wrote: > i'd like to request RFC Karma (Username: paresy) to create the RFC for my > cURL user agent proposal: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6834 RFC karma granted. Best of luck! :) -- Christoph M. Becker -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks > like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small, > cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to do > away with

[PHP-DEV] RFC Karma

Hi Internals, i'd like to request RFC Karma (Username: paresy) to create the RFC for my cURL user agent proposal: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6834 Thanks, Michael

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hey Matīss On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:12 AM Matīss Treinis wrote: > I don't necessarily agree with this point in particular - I mentioned PSR > just-by-driveby, since whoever does follow that convention will face this > issue - but the scope of the proposal is not

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

I don't necessarily agree with this point in particular - I mentioned PSR just-by-driveby, since whoever does follow that convention will face this issue - but the scope of the proposal is not limited to PSR adopters. It's also worth pointing out that PSR is not an "official" coding guideline for

[PHP-DEV] Re: Bugsnet

Hi Joe, I don't think anybody denies that bugsnet isn't great, and that spam is an issue. I would argue that the main reason for the spam is, is that we don't require a sign-up. But I think we need to be really careful if we'd decide to move to something else. TLDR: I don't believe GitHub

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On 10.05.2021 10:49, Matīss Treinis wrote: > Another point to be made here, as far as my interpretation of PSR-12, the > curly braces occupy two lines for methods with multiline arguments. So for > whoever follows PSR-12, it's more like this, with brackets just dangling > there across 2 lines. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:50 AM Matīss Treinis wrote: > Hi Marco, > > I am not sure, that's why I am asking for feedback. > > I have been converting a ton of code to use constructor property promotion > and the absolute majority ends up with the method body being empty. I > reckon this could be

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hi internals On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:32 AM Marco Pivetta wrote: > > Hey Matīss, > > This already works by replacing `;` with `{}`: https://3v4l.org/tN4HM > > Is the change in AST really necessary, considering that? The root problem is not that {} is significantly worse than ; but it's that

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hi Marco, I am not sure, that's why I am asking for feedback. I have been converting a ton of code to use constructor property promotion and the absolute majority ends up with the method body being empty. I reckon this could be a nice eye-candy to have, however, it's nothing more than that.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hey Matīss, This already works by replacing `;` with `{}`: https://3v4l.org/tN4HM Is the change in AST really necessary, considering that? Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/ On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matīss Treinis wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Since

[PHP-DEV] [RFC][Draft] Body-less __construct

Hi everyone, Since constructor property promotion is now implemented, and it looks like it could become a widely used feature, I am proposing a small, cosmetic change in syntax for constructors in concrete classes to do away with empty constructor body. Here's an example of how this would

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bugsnet

On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:49 AM Joe Watkins wrote: > Morning internals, > > We have a spam problem on bugsnet, it's not a new problem. Nikita had to > waste time deleting 20 odd messages from bugsnet yesterday and this is a > common, daily occurrence. We clearly don't have time for this. > >