Hi Larry,
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:55 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
>
> They currently do, since they work by creating a Closure-esque object
> called Partial with an __invoke() method.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
>
1. Would it be possible to mention the `Partial` class in the RFC? From
what I
On Tue, May 11, 2021, at 7:57 AM, Go Kudo wrote:
> Hi internals.
>
> I previously proposed an object scope RNG implementation inside.
> However, the RFC was rejected after a vote.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_scope_prng
>
> Vote: https://externals.io/message/113888
> Discussion:
On 11.05.2021 at 18:58, Kamil Tekiela wrote:
> On 11.05.2021 at 18:44, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
>> I doubt "bottom posting" is a term people who started online in the
>> last 10 years know - with today/yesterday's example, my takeaway was
>> the original poster didn't know what it meant.
>
> Yeah,
On Tue, May 11, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > > BTW, ideally, partial functions should not increase the depth of the
> > > stacktrace at all. Do they?
> > >
> > > Nicolas
> >
> > They currently do, since they work by creating a Closure-esque object
> > called Partial with an
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:58 AM Go Kudo wrote:
>
> Hi internals.
>
> I previously proposed an object scope RNG implementation inside.
> However, the RFC was rejected after a vote.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_scope_prng
>
> Vote: https://externals.io/message/113888
> Discussion:
Am 11.05.2021 um 19:02 schrieb Calvin Buckley :
> - almost all modern mail clients are threaded, it's trivial to view
> context, so I want to see replies "above the fold"
Funnily enough the fact the mail clients are threaded nowadays is a good reason
for me to use inline replies with rigorously
> > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > > Greetings, Internalians!
> > > >
> > > > I would like to offer for your consideration another RFC,
> specifically
> > > > syntax for partial function application.
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 05:34:41PM +0100, Good Guy wrote:
> With top posts people can go straight to the point raised by the poster. If
> anyone is following the thread, he doesn't need 3 pages of previous posts.
> All he needs is what is being posted by the poster in question.
I completely
On Tue, May 11, 2021, at 11:57 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > > Greetings, Internalians!
> > >
> > > I would like to offer for your consideration another RFC, specifically
> > > syntax for partial function application.
> > >
> > >
I'm just going to say...
- almost all modern mail clients are threaded, it's trivial to view
context, so I want to see replies "above the fold"
- bottom posting goes against the grain of modern mail clients
- overall, it just feels like arbitrary preferences set decades ago;
worst case it feels
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:56 PM Matt Fonda wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 7:45 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> My thought here is that a constructor with (only) promoted properties is
>> hardly a constructor at all -- it's more like a special syntax for
>> declaring properties that happens to
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:39 PM Larry Garfield
wrote:
> It looks like the conversation has died down, and it's been two weeks, so
> pending any other notable feedback I'll open a vote on this RFC on Thursday
> or Friday.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
>
>
My only query / point of consideration is a
> I doubt "bottom posting" is a term people who started online in the last
10
years know - with today/yesterday's example, my takeaway was the original
poster didn't know what it meant.
Yeah, the first time I heard about it is on this mailing list. I didn't
know it was a thing before, and I admit
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> > Greetings, Internalians!
> >
> > I would like to offer for your consideration another RFC, specifically
> > syntax for partial function application.
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application
> >
> > It includes an
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 7:45 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
> My thought here is that a constructor with (only) promoted properties is
> hardly a constructor at all -- it's more like a special syntax for
> declaring properties that happens to re-use the constructor notation,
> because that allows it
Am 11.05.2021 um 18:42 schrieb Kamil Tekiela :
> Compare the two messages from Sara, the first where she top posted and the
> second where she bottom posted. Which one is more clear?
> https://imgur.com/TUiHval
The second one which shows me what Sara is referring to.
Imagine it just said "I don't
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 22:52, Kamil Tekiela wrote:
> 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.
>
I like bottom-posting or point-by-point replies, but would drop the rule
and make the list a more
On 11/05/2021 15:36, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:21 AM Chase Peeler wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:34 AM Mel Dafert wrote:
(Gmail certainly can't, it can't even send non-HTML mails, and even with
K-9 I have to remember doing it.)
I’m sending this from gmail on my phone,
And readable
On Tue, May 11, 2021, 18:42 Kamil Tekiela wrote:
> I completely agree with Good Guy. Top posting is just way more convenient.
>
Compare the two messages from Sara, the first where she top posted and the
second where she bottom posted. Which one is more clear?
https://imgur.com/TUiHval
I completely agree with Good Guy. Top posting is just way more convenient.
People are using smart phones these days so top posting is very
convenient. As you say people don't read the entire thread so why keep
them in the posts when replying? Surely, there are other means to get
the gist of the discussion if one wants to be reminded about.
On 11/05/2021 08:23,
With top posts people can go straight to the point raised by the
poster. If anyone is following the thread, he doesn't need 3 pages of
previous posts. All he needs is what is being posted by the poster in
question.
People don't need the history of entire thread in one post because it is
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:48 AM Michael Morris wrote:
> If this list has ever had a "bike shed" issue, this would be it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
>
>
>
I agree, but it's within its own thread and not hijacking other ones, so no
harm in discussing it.
>
> On Tue, May
If this list has ever had a "bike shed" issue, this would be it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:01 AM Mel Dafert wrote:
> >> This plaintext reply sent via Gmail web client. I don't know what Mel is
> >> talking about either.
> >>
> >>
> >Gmail's
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, at 2:25 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Greetings, Internalians!
>
> I would like to offer for your consideration another RFC, specifically
> syntax for partial function application.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/partial_function_application
>
> It includes an implementation
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:07 PM Pierre wrote:
> Le 10/05/2021 à 18:58, Larry Garfield a écrit :
>
> > I agree that in the grand scheme of things this would be a minor matter,
> but aesthetically I would prefer it as well. The {} annoys me, CS tools or
> no.
> >
> > Related: I feel the same way
Am 11.05.2021 um 17:01 schrieb Mel Dafert :
>>> This plaintext reply sent via Gmail web client. I don't know what Mel is
>>> talking about either.
>>>
>> Gmail's web client is what I normally use, and have never had an issue with
>> it.
>
> Sorry for being unclear - I meant the Gmail android
> Le 11 mai 2021 à 09:11, Marco Pivetta a écrit :
>
> Sure, why not: email clients are decent enough to hide quoted sections
> anyway
>
> Heck, even my phone can read top-posts, and the rest of the folks (reddit,
> mostly) use https://externals.io/ anyway 路
>
> Feel free to call me out for
Le 10/05/2021 à 18:58, Larry Garfield a écrit :
I agree that in the grand scheme of things this would be a minor matter, but
aesthetically I would prefer it as well. The {} annoys me, CS tools or no.
Related: I feel the same way about empty-classes and interfaces, which is often
the case
>> This plaintext reply sent via Gmail web client. I don't know what Mel is
>> talking about either.
>>
>>
>Gmail's web client is what I normally use, and have never had an issue with
>it.
Sorry for being unclear - I meant the Gmail android app.
If the app does have an option for plaintext
Le 11/05/2021 à 16:50, Chase Peeler a écrit :
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:48 AM Matīss Treinis wrote:
Hi Sara,
> While it's certainly silly/pointless to have a nil constructor when
there are non-promoted args present, I think that deliberately making
that mode special (read: inconsistent)
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:48 AM Matīss Treinis wrote:
> Hi Sara,
>
> > While it's certainly silly/pointless to have a nil constructor when
> there are non-promoted args present, I think that deliberately making
> that mode special (read: inconsistent) is the wrong way to go.
>
> Sorry, but I
Hi Sara,
> While it's certainly silly/pointless to have a nil constructor when
there are non-promoted args present, I think that deliberately making
that mode special (read: inconsistent) is the wrong way to go.
Sorry, but I don't follow - so you would prefer that this:
public function
Le 11/05/2021 à 16:39, Chase Peeler a écrit :
I agree. I think making things inconsistent between constructors and other
methods is something that can be lived with - there are already other
things special about constructors that don't apply to other methods - but
we should at least allow
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:37 PM Côme Chilliet <
come.chill...@fusiondirectory.org> wrote:
> Le Tue, 11 May 2021 10:58:57 +0200,
> Nikita Popov a écrit :
>
> > If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a
> > promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:36 AM Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:21 AM Chase Peeler
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:34 AM Mel Dafert wrote:
> > > (Gmail certainly can't, it can't even send non-HTML mails, and even
> with
> > > K-9 I have to remember doing it.)
> > >
> >
On Tue, May 11, 2021, at 8:57 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 14:12, Dik Takken wrote:
> > So the use of "new" in initializers would require extending this base
> > class and call the parent constructor. Maybe forgetting to do so could
> > throw, preventing initializers from silently not
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:34 AM Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM Matīss Treinis
> wrote:
> > Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
> > ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
> > parameters, and no not-promoted
Le Tue, 11 May 2021 10:58:57 +0200,
Nikita Popov a écrit :
> If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a
> promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I don't think
> we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case.
This would
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:21 AM Chase Peeler wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:34 AM Mel Dafert wrote:
> > (Gmail certainly can't, it can't even send non-HTML mails, and even with
> > K-9 I have to remember doing it.)
> >
> I’m sending this from gmail on my phone, so not sure what you are
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:18 AM Matīss Treinis wrote:
> Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
> ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
> parameters, and no not-promoted parameters.
>
Hard disagree. While it's certainly silly/pointless
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:53 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
> I'd like to propose the depreciation of the ticks mechanism:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_ticks
>
> I'm submitting this separately from the PHP 8.1 deprecations RFC, as this
> is a language change, even if not a particularly important
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:34 AM Mel Dafert wrote:
> On 10 May 2021 23:57:51 CEST, Christian Schneider
> wrote:
> >No.
> >Outlook is not modern.
>
> While I agree with this (and I also agree with keeping bottom-posting), I
> feel like we could make this easier
> for new contributors by giving
-1. Top posting encourages lazy email composition. One should put an ounce
of thought into how one organizes a response.
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:52 PM Kamil Tekiela wrote:
>
> Hi Internals,
>
> Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?
>
> Almost all new contributors fall into this trap and reply
Oh absolutely, and many thanks for doing the code part, Nikita!
I would propose leaving this open for debate till, say, 15th of May here on
internals ML to gather more input.
If there are no super strong arguments on why this should not happen or go
to RFC, I will draft a RFC and from there, the
On 11/05/2021 14:12, Dik Takken wrote:
So the use of "new" in initializers would require extending this base
class and call the parent constructor. Maybe forgetting to do so could
throw, preventing initializers from silently not working.
If we managed to get that working, I wonder if we could
On 11-05-2021 11:56, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> An issue for using new in (non-static) properties is that these objects are
> going to get created even if the constructor doesn't run. This could be a
> problem for things like unserialize() and anything that implements related
> functionality in
Hi internals.
I previously proposed an object scope RNG implementation inside.
However, the RFC was rejected after a vote.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_scope_prng
Vote: https://externals.io/message/113888
Discussion: https://externals.io/message/112819
As per my previous proposal, PHP is
>
> Hi Nikita,
>
> wt., 11 maj 2021 o 10:53 Nikita Popov napisał(a):
>
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > I'd like to propose the depreciation of the ticks mechanism:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_ticks
> >
> > I'm submitting this separately from the PHP 8.1 deprecations RFC, as this
> > is a
Am 11.05.2021 um 11:13 schrieb Michał Marcin Brzuchalski:
Glad to see this topic. That's a YES
I second that emotion.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Maintaining php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
> If we allow it, I would restrict it to specifically the case of a) a
> promoted constructor b) which has *only* promoted parameters. I don't think
> we should allow replacing "{}" with ";" for methods in the general case.
It could also be useful when you want to make sure constructor is
*not*
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:17 PM Matīss Treinis wrote:
> Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
> ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
> parameters, and no not-promoted parameters.
>
> These would NOT be considered valid:
>
>
Yes, just to clarify the scope of my initial proposal, this should only
ever apply to promoted constructors that have 1 or more promoted
parameters, and no not-promoted parameters.
These would NOT be considered valid:
public function __construct(
private Baz $baz,
Bar $bar
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:02 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:57 PM Nikita Popov
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:22 PM Nikita Popov
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:04 PM Alexandru Pătrănescu
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:49 PM Nikita
Hi Nikita,
wt., 11 maj 2021 o 10:53 Nikita Popov napisał(a):
> Hi internals,
>
> I'd like to propose the depreciation of the ticks mechanism:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_ticks
>
> I'm submitting this separately from the PHP 8.1 deprecations RFC, as this
> is a language change, even if
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
Hi internals,
I'd like to propose the depreciation of the ticks mechanism:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_ticks
I'm submitting this separately from the PHP 8.1 deprecations RFC, as this
is a language change, even if not a particularly important one...
Regards,
Nikita
Den tir. 11. maj 2021 kl. 00.52 skrev Kamil Tekiela :
> Could we please change this rule or at least stop enforcing it?
> Do people actually have mail clients that don't automatically hide the
> previous conversation? If not, then I think we can let people top-post.
-1. I feel the same as Stas
Le 10/05/2021 à 23:51, Kamil Tekiela a écrit :
Hi Internals,
Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?
I'm opposed to dropping the bottom-posting rule, for the simple reason
that you naturally read from top to bottom, and most people don't bother
reading again the whole thread when they read a
Sure, why not: email clients are decent enough to hide quoted sections
anyway
Heck, even my phone can read top-posts, and the rest of the folks (reddit,
mostly) use https://externals.io/ anyway 路
Feel free to call me out for top-posting this
On Mon, May 10, 2021, 23:52 Kamil Tekiela wrote:
On 10 May 2021 23:57:51 CEST, Christian Schneider wrote:
>No.
>Outlook is not modern.
While I agree with this (and I also agree with keeping bottom-posting), I feel
like we could make this easier
for new contributors by giving some examples of which clients to use and how to
configure them.
62 matches
Mail list logo
