the proposed patch (backport from php6) is attached.
I think this feature is completely useless and it was agreed to remove
it about 5 years ago.
Derick, can I commit the patch today?
Thanks. Dmitry.
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Previously we decided to remove break/continue $var syntax.
I
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
the proposed patch (backport from php6) is attached.
I think this feature is completely useless and it was agreed to remove it
about 5 years ago.
Derick, can I commit the patch today?
Sure. You know this stuff best :-)
cheers,
Derick
--
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On 2010-11-23, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Felipe Pena wrote:
. classes named as any of the type hint scalar types
do not work
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM, André Rømcke a...@ez.no wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On 2010-11-23, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Felipe Pena wrote:
.
Hi Dmitry,
From a BC point of view, the impact will be minimal. The only project
I found relying on this syntax is XPath class [1].
Please add a note the upgrade guide as well in trunk, maybe in a BC
break sections.
[1] http://google.com/codesearch?hl=ensa=Nq=lang:php+break\s{1,}%28\%24\w%29
Pierre Joye wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
From a BC point of view, the impact will be minimal. The only project
I found relying on this syntax is XPath class [1].
I'm wondered why they use it, because their var ($parseBlock) is always 1.
Please add a note the upgrade guide as well in trunk, maybe
Hi,
I filed a bug report with an attached patch that adds an E_STRICT warning when
defining a function with a required parameter after an optional function
parameter, for example:
function foo($optional = 1, $required) {}
Although doing this works, code written like that is probably making a
On Nov 24 12:28:38, John Bafford wrote:
Hi,
I filed a bug report with an attached patch that adds an E_STRICT warning
when defining a function with a required parameter after an optional function
parameter, for example:
function foo($optional = 1, $required) {}
Although doing this
Hi all,
I had a thought this morning and would like some feedback. Don't you think
it would make sense to allow the callback psuedo-type to also allow the new
Closure class to be an acceptable data type? A simple example that would be
nice to have working would be
?php
$fClosure =
Ummm... never mind!
Sorry for the noise!
-nathan
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Nathan Nobbe quickshif...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
I had a thought this morning and would like some feedback. Don't you think
it would make sense to allow the callback psuedo-type to also allow the new
Hi!
Given the semantics of PHP arguments, there is nothing wrong with
defining a required argument after an optional one, and in some cases
it is required. Consider:
I think there's something wrong with it, primarily - the fact that it
doesn't really make any sense. The object/null thing is
hi,
2010/11/23 Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org:
I think support 5 or even 3 parallel versions will be highly
impractical and extra-ordinarily challenging. I think we need a plan
that limits us to 2 versions and perhaps a 3rd one for critical
security fixes only.
Yes, that's what the two
hi,
amen.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2010-11-23, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
All the rest you write in the RFC is basically already as we do it.
yeah, maybe, but they aren't
hi Derick,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I am absolutely against stalling again!
I am absolutely against going into a release process with the current
state of the affairs.
I think it would be much better for everyone if we first agree on the
release
hi,
hi,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Zeev Suraski wrote:
To me this alpha would be a this is what we're mostly likely going
to have thing. I wouldn't like to see new major features, engine
rework being done; but I also think we
hi,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
Well, I don't think we've ever been democratic.
Neither have we been dictatorial. Announcing a new major (x.y+1.z)
release in the middle of some of the largest conferences (knowing that
many core devs won't follow the
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
+1
+1 here too.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye |
hi,
To avoid any possible issue or features introduced without consensus,
I'd to ask to first revert the current implementation from trunk.
There is clearly no consensus on this feature and the RFCs are either
incomplete or without actual implementations
(http://wiki.php.net/rfc/typechecking).
hi,
We have moved not too long ago and for what I see it gave some
opportunities to many of us to see what are the other tools on the
market, git and github in particular. I think 99% of the active
developers here are on github or use git in one way or another.
I think git could be a great help,
On Nov 24, 2010, at 14:02, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Given the semantics of PHP arguments, there is nothing wrong with
defining a required argument after an optional one, and in some cases
it is required. Consider:
I think there's something wrong with it, primarily - the fact that it doesn't
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 20:47, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
[snip]
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
You might recall several conversations on this during the period
where Gwynne was migrating us from CVS
On 25 November 2010 09:47, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
I would be +1 on this, where 1 is the biggest 1 possible without it
becoming 2. :)
git-svn is a reasonable alternative for
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:12:25 pm Daniel Brown wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 20:47, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
[snip]
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
You might recall several
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
The main reasons we moved to SVN and not Git include:
- Less of a learning curve, because SVN is like CVS
- Most of the CVS-SVN work was already finished
- A few old timers didn't want us
Hi!
With the recent chaos in the way we begin and ended releases, we would
like to propose a clean way to deal with releases and related decisions: [1]
Really? I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion.
I don't mind a yearly release cycle, as we should get out more releases.
I
Hi!
We have moved not too long ago and for what I see it gave some
opportunities to many of us to see what are the other tools on the
market, git and github in particular. I think 99% of the active
developers here are on github or use git in one way or another.
My personal experience is that
-Original Message-
From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:39 PM
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: Felipe Pena; internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Process
Hi!
With the recent chaos in the way we begin and ended releases, we
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:47 PM
To: PHP internals
Subject: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?
hi,
We have moved not too long ago and for what I see it gave some opportunities
to many of us to see what are the
Pierre Joye wrote:
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
Have you used git on Windows Pierre ... It is a joke!
Yes one can get it to work, but only if you do not use anything that the git
cygwin install destroys! And as yet
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
Please not I'm not requesting to do it now and here, only trying to
get a feeling/poll about git usage.
Have you used git on Windows Pierre ... It is a joke!
I'm pretty sure, that Pierre uses
2010/11/25 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk:
Have you used git on Windows Pierre ... It is a joke!
Yes one can get it to work, but only if you do not use anything that the git
cygwin install destroys! And as yet there is no consensus on getting it
working cross platform in things like Eclipse.
On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
2010/11/25 Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com:
hi,
We have moved not too long ago and for what I see it gave some
opportunities to many of us to see what are the other tools on the
market, git and github in particular. I think 99% of the active
developers here are on github or use git in one
Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
2010/11/25 Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk:
Have you used git on Windows Pierre ... It is a joke!
Yes one can get it to work, but only if you do not use anything that the git
cygwin install destroys! And as yet there is no consensus on getting it
working cross platform in
2010/11/25 Davey Shafik da...@php.net:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 11/23/2010 02:30 AM, Felipe Pena wrote:
5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
release management RFC
35 matches
Mail list logo
