On 03/29/2013 04:50 PM, Frank Liepert wrote:
Hello Internals,
I'm thinking about a new function returning an array of classes and their
individual number of instances. It would look pretty much like the result of
get_declared_classes().
An Example:
print_r (get_instantiated_classes());
//
On 03/30/2013 07:45 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 03/29/2013 04:50 PM, Frank Liepert wrote:
Hello Internals,
I'm thinking about a new function returning an array of classes and their
individual number of instances. It would look pretty much like the
result of
get_declared_classes().
An Example
On 04/03/2013 06:23 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
1a) The c modifier seems like an unnecessary microoptimization. Compilers
should be able to optimize strlen() calls on constant strings away and even
if they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a big deal. Also using the
c-variants on a non-literal would
On 04/03/2013 08:43 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 04/03/2013 06:23 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
1a) The c modifier seems like an unnecessary microoptimization.
Compilers
should be able to optimize strlen() calls on constant strings away
and even
if they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a big deal. Also
On 04/04/2013 04:09 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
A logical extension of this idea would be to drop _array_ and cover
objects too, one uniform everything API is very appealing, and way
easier to document properly.
https://gist.github.com/krakjoe/5304945
I'd be happy to complete/test it if we think
The idea was to avoid treating the object as an array of properties
where there is another option. Where there isn't an option the objects
properties have to be accessed as an array dont they?
On 4/4/13, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Joe Watkins krak
On 04/04/2013 03:18 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
Hello everybody,
Today we talked about a way to detect --with-curlwrappers at runtime.
It is nowadays not possible easilly.
Then , I remembered I once proposed to add a new function that could return
every ./configure options used to compile the
On 04/04/2013 05:53 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Something that hasn't been mentioned, installation of software like
wordpress or whatever, might be able to offer advice to the end user
based on the configuration defaults, regardless of ini settings.
Le
On 04/04/2013 06:30 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Many extensions do not provide constants or functions to detect the way
they are configured, this may or may not expose those options, which is
better than not being able to expose those options by any
On 04/04/2013 07:04 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
On 04/04/2013 06:30 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Many extensions do not provide constants or functions to detect the way
they are configured
On 04/05/2013 09:31 AM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
After discussing things over the PHP chat on Stack Overflow, I
realized I misread and missed the point.
Good suggestion, you have my +1.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Richard Bradley
richard.brad...@softwire.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at
On 04/05/2013 11:39 AM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
After I saw this question on Stack Overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15688642/how-does-a-class-extension-or-interface-work,
I realized that the guy was right.
Is there an explanation for this, or is it just one of those things
that got
Morning All,
Further to discussion in IRC this morning, I'd like to propose what
amounts to, I guess, a sub-project to properly document everything,
starting with everything declared ZEND_API in /Zend.
We put a lot of effort into the generation and maintenance of user land
documentation,
On 04/05/2013 12:01 PM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
That's not the problem, the problem is when you extend a class with a
(defined) interface, you can't use the class before it is defined (the
class, not the interface). See the examples on the linked question.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Joe
On 04/05/2013 01:23 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:09 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I think that it everybody would support that idea, unfortunatelly not
many
people have the knowledge AND the time to write up that kind of
documentation.
That is the key part. There's no
On 04/05/2013 12:00 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning All,
Further to discussion in IRC this morning, I'd like to propose what
amounts to, I guess, a sub-project to properly document everything,
starting with everything declared ZEND_API in /Zend.
We put a lot of effort
On 04/07/2013 12:29 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I'm not really sure how documenting (inline) API functions is really
going to be any different to the prototypes we all put on extension
functions/methods, or any more time consuming, and I don't see how
randomness comes into it.
Just
On 04/08/2013 09:07 PM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
I'm with Morrison, I see no actual use for this.
It's cool, but what would you use it for?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Levi Morrison morrison.l...@gmail.com wrote:
I see little value in having a function that tells me how many objects
of any
On 04/09/2013 01:53 AM, David Muir wrote:
On 09/04/13 10:29, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 04/08/2013 09:07 PM, Madara Uchiha wrote:
I'm with Morrison, I see no actual use for this.
It's cool, but what would you use it for?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Levi Morrison
morrison.l...@gmail.com wrote
On 04/09/2013 11:23 AM, Laruence wrote:
if a class need that, it can implement a interface like instance_counter,
which will simply can implement like:
class A {
public static $instance_counter = 0;
public function __construct() { self::$instance_counter++; }
public function
On 05/09/2013 01:02 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Linux and
provide an upgrade path for users. The RC1 looks pretty solid so far.
As the new opcache does not provide a user cache to store custom
variables, I would be glad if you could
On 05/10/2013 08:54 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2013 05:02 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Linux and
provide an upgrade path for users. The RC1 looks pretty solid so far.
As the new opcache does not provide a user cache to
On 05/11/2013 11:10 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 05/10/2013 08:54 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2013 05:02 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Linux and
provide an upgrade path for users. The RC1 looks pretty solid so far
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
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
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
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
On 09/24/2013 01:30 PM, Kristopher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Terence Copestake
terence.copest...@gmail.com wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here, could this feature make the language more
expressive?
Take for example an API where you'd typically wrap a method call in
try/catch
On 09/24/2013 09:50 PM, Robert Stoll wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joe Watkins [mailto:krak...@php.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:08 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net; Kristopher
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Anonymous Classes
On 09/24/2013 01:30 PM, Kristopher wrote:
On Tue
On 09/25/2013 09:59 AM, Terence Copestake wrote:
I'm growing to like the idea myself. It may create new opportunities for
bad practices, but I don't think it's the concern of internals to police
how people may or may not use a feature. There are also I think a few
things that would need to be
On 09/25/2013 02:02 PM, Terence Copestake wrote:
1) Anonymous classes in PHP would support a constructor, so I don't see
the need for use to be utilized here, it would just clutter declarations
and the patch.
This works, but it's more effort for the programmer and arguably just
moving the
On 09/26/2013 01:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi!
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
I'd like to hear thoughts regarding the addition of anonymous classes,
patch included.
Thanks for your proposal
On 09/26/2013 10:28 AM, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
I think what Terence was talking about is more like this:
class A
{
}
class AProxifier
{
protected function protectedMethod() {...}
function getAProxy()
{
return new class extends A { /* How do you call
On 09/26/2013 11:38 AM, Lazare Inepologlou wrote:
2013/9/26 Joe Watkins krak...@php.net
On 09/26/2013 01:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi!
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Morning All,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**anonymous_classeshttps://wiki.php.net/rfc
On 09/26/2013 01:00 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013 10:35 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Thanks ...
I have made many changes to the RFC and patch since the beginning of this
discussion ...
It might be useful if you could all now go back to the RFC for another
read
On 09/27/2013 10:42 AM, Terence Copestake wrote:
Just ... Isn't that something, we can simply keep out of _this_ RFC and
create separate RFC(s) for it later? Like it was done with $this in
Closures?
Do we want another 5.3/5.4 closures situation? Why not iron it all out to
begin with?
If
Hi All,
I'd like to RFC on Nested Classes (Draft):
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nested_classes
There's been a little bit of discussion already about it, in the
usual places mostly, but also while considering anonymous classes on the
lists ... time to make it public I guess ...
On 10/01/2013 12:16 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net
wrote:
Hi All,
I'd like to RFC on Nested Classes (Draft):
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**nested_classeshttps://wiki.php.net/rfc/nested_classes
There's been a little bit of discussion
On 10/01/2013 01:19 PM, Terence Copestake wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
On 09/27/2013 10:42 AM, Terence Copestake wrote:
Just ... Isn't that something, we can simply keep out of _this_ RFC and
create separate RFC(s) for it later? Like
On 10/04/2013 12:11 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
On 9/29/2013 4:12 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nested_classes
One issue I see from a maintenance perspective (of the user of this
feature) is that you could end up having files with dozens of classes,
it would be nice if it dot
On 10/04/2013 05:32 PM, Robert Stoll wrote:
Heya,
Just to be sure, this feature would not allow nested classes in functions,
right?
Cheers,
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Joe Watkins [mailto:krak...@php.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:12 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Cheers
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 10/07/2013 08:09 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Also I do
On 10/07/2013 08:48 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
5.6 remains an option ...
I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7
On 10/07/2013 10:46 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Cheers
On 10/07/2013 10:49 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 10/07/2013 10:46 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option
On 10/07/2013 12:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 08:38 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7, then a
few people joined in the discussion and I
On 10/20/2013 12:15 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Robert Stoll rst...@tutteli.ch wrote:
Heya,
I do not know how much it concerns this RFC but I came across the following
page about an extension named Expect when I was searching for RFC Expect
with google.
On 10/21/2013 09:16 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 21 October 2013 10:13, Patrick Schaaf b...@bof.de wrote:
Am 21.10.2013 03:52 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
So looks like we need a new name ?? Ideas ??
abstract EXPRESSION
wat?
abstract is already a keyword, so no BC.
abstract
On 10/21/2013 02:27 PM, Hochstrasser Christoph wrote:
Hi Derick,
This is again an RFC that does not even attempt to argue for its
usefulness. This functionality was meant to replace the assert() API
that currently exists in PHP, because of problems replacing it in a
compatible manner. This
On 10/21/2013 09:42 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 21/10/2013 21:36, rpar...@yamiko.org wrote:
This proposal sounds a lot like exceptions to me or am I missing
something :/
Could we do something like throw new expectation($expects, $message);
Er, T_EXPECT will be essentially a clone of Java
On 10/22/2013 07:32 PM, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
Am 22.10.2013 20:07 schrieb Joe Watkins krak...@php.net:
You can catch exceptions, and log them.
You can do that without impacting everything around you, you can do that,
or whatever else you like.
You can do that handling when you have only
On 10/22/2013 06:20 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
On 22 October 2013 02:08, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I'm pretty convinced that expectations *without* exceptions are a good
idea, as using assert (which is really eval) is a nasty thing that
should be replaced, but IMO exception throwing
Okay that's reasonable enough ... Baby steps :)
Cheers
Joe
On 24 Oct 2013 20:40, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
I have to ask the question; why stop at half way ??
A warning does absolutely nothing
On 10/24/2013 06:41 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
Hi internals!
I'd like to propose an RFC, which allows the use of exceptions within the
engine and also allows changing existing fatal errors to exceptions:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/engine_exceptions
This topic has been cropping up in the
On 10/31/2013 09:21 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi Joe,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Joe Watkins krak...@php.net wrote:
How could you override them ??
It's in PoC patch.
I made it while 5.5 was in beta, but it would
On 10/18/2013 10:46 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Evening Chaps,
Following on from discussion regarding assertion API in PHP, the
following RFC is now up for discussion:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations
Please do point out any missing sections or information, so that it
can
On 10/31/2013 08:28 AM, Martin Keckeis wrote:
I don't see that it is possible to merge the settings from different
libraries, what if an application is relying on mbstring and iconv having
different settings ??
I think this use case is descibed in the RFC. The default_charset can be
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 13:16 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:
Hi internals!
Today the int64 RFC has been merged, despite objections regarding the
naming changes it introduces.
As we were not given a chance to resolve this issue before the merge, a
short proposal has been created, which aims to
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:26 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
What does that even mean?
It means that any new functionality that gets into core could be considered
young. Like when PHAR got
Morning internalz,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be opening any
vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7, there is no rush
whatever.
Now seems like a good time to start the conversation so we can hash
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 08:40 +0100, Leigh wrote:
On 21 October 2014 08:06, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org wrote:
Morning internalz,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be opening
any
vote in a fortnight. We
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 09:02 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
On 21/10/14 08:06, Joe Watkins wrote:
Now seems like a good time to start the conversation so we can hash out
the details, or get on with other things ;)
Does this address the problem of sorting array keys using a particular
language
is not a good API.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org
wrote:
Morning internalz,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we
won't
about it but maybe you
thought that is implicit given).
Cheers,
Robert
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Watkins [mailto:pthre...@pthreads.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014 09:07
An: internals@lists.php.net
Betreff: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] UString
Morning internalz
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 13:52 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org
wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 13:01 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi Joe,
As an extension it looks fine
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 10:30 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wish there was a way for specific objects to opt into this.
There will be, if __hashKey() or whatever would be the properly
bikeshedded name, becomes reality as discussed elsewhere. It shouldn't
be hard to do and it's exactly
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 21:42 +0100, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 21/10/2014 08:06, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning internalz,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be opening any
vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 10:28 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be opening any
vote in a fortnight. We have a long time before 7, there is no rush
whatever.
Couple of thoughts:
- I like
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 07:49 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 0:06, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org wrote:
Morning internalz,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ustring
This is the result of work done by a few of us, we won't be opening any
vote in a fortnight. We
:11 PM, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org
wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 10:30 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I wish there was a way for specific objects to opt into
this.
There will be, if __hashKey() or whatever would
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:47 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Not ready for discussion yet ...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/hashkey
Hey, I've just started my own... https://wiki.php.net/rfc/objkey I guess
we should combine them :)
Happy to port patch already written to conform to your
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:47 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Not ready for discussion yet ...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/hashkey
Hey, I've just started my own... https://wiki.php.net/rfc/objkey I guess
we should combine them :)
Done, branch @
On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 12:54 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
P.S. u() is a bad name, will break lots of code, i.e.
Maybe __u()? It's a bit ugly but you're not allowed to use __ so it's safe.
/me cringes ...
I wonder how much of a problem it really is, usually when we say some
function
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 23:06 -0400, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Bob Weinand wrote:
Commit:2bcac53bca8ea82d661f057b6d9ff3c7c84f05a7
Author:Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com Fri, 24 Oct 2014
19:29:50 +0200
Parents: 53560ca06b333b71883269091f7d74c0a25e087b
On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 16:19 +0700, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org wrote:
Although this patch does make it work with PHP 7, it also does do
something absolutely different: it reinvents a wheel by coming up with a
new XML
On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 11:20 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Just a minor question, Derick. If you care about phpdbg, why are you
only dropping any comment about it by the time it got into php-src
repo? It’s known that all the development currently (except for
master, but that just was a
to propose a formal RFC for it. Both the text
and the code in the patch includes bits done by myself and Joe Watkins.
The patch does not cover 100% of cases but should work for most
reasonable scenarios, if something is wrong or you have ideas how to
make it better please tell.
The name __hash
On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:36 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
It seems __toScalar might be a good name, this is what the method
actually does, the engine then coerces to a type suitable for use as a
key, but you can return a double. It might be more forward thinking
therefore to use the
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 00:41 -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Once your proposal is in the language, you will never, in the future, be
able to add real support for objects as keys, because the semantics is
blocked.
This implies this support is not real and we want some other support.
I
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 17:08 -0700, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Bob Weinand wrote:
Am 26.10.2014 um 16:09 schrieb Derick Rethans der...@php.net:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Joe Watkins wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 23:06 -0400, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:56 +0700, Pierre Joye wrote:
This is new information to me, I was lead to believe that phpstorm
were
happy to invest time in it.
I asked bob for the xml stuff to be reverted from 5.6 and master
yesterday and be developed elsewhere.
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 13:06 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hey, I can accept that.
But it’d be great if you could only revert now in the 5.6.3
release branch, not in the 5.6
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 21:03 +, Derick Rethans wrote:
Hi,
This is based on an email conversation between Joe Watkins and me. I
asked him
what the original scope of phpdbg was, and I've summarized his reply
here:
- PHPDBG was originally envisioned as a gdb for the Zend VM, with gdb
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 09:19 +, Lester Caine wrote:
On 04/11/14 06:00, Joe Watkins wrote:
I'm not saying we should not extend the features of phpdbg, but, we
should do it knowing what it actually is, knowing that it is
fundamentally different to xdebug.
Having just hit another 'white
On Sat, 2014-11-15 at 11:16 +0100, Florian Margaine wrote:
Hi list,
As of today, most of the SAPIs have a lot of code duplication with
regards to HTTP headers parsing/handling.
I'm about to completely duplicate a function from one SAPI to the
other to add a feature to fpm
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 10:07 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
After some Twitter hints that I should get my act together and finally move
this to a vote, it’s finally happening:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7timeline#vote
Cast your vote!
Zeev
Morning Zeev,
Proposed
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 16:54 +0100, Anatol Belski wrote:
Hi,
this is a long spoken topic which is now embodied in
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/native-tls . A preliminary implementation is
there as well, thus we can discuss it.
Regards
Anatol
Afternoon Anatol,
w00t
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 16:44 +, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 27 Nov 2014, at 16:44, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 27 Nov 2014, at 15:54, Anatol Belski anatol@belski.net wrote:
this is a long spoken topic which is now embodied in
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/native-tls . A
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 02:13 +0100, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
Hello everyone,
this is a proposal to add new function to PHP core: spl_object_id()
The story:
Recently I was debugging some larger libraries and sorely missed a function
that would return an object ID. A function called
On Sat, 2014-12-06 at 12:03 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi Rowan,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
The author of function f1() presumably designed it to apply some change to
$v, rather than executing only for its side effects and return value.
On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 22:03 +, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Hi!
We’re now half-way through voting on this RFC, and only three people, two if
I’m excluded, have voted. I realise it’s a rather technical and obscure
matter, but I am a little worried by how few people have voted so far. Three
Evening Scott,
We should only consider moving an extension from PECL to core if that
extension is in wide use.
In addition to having a properly established user base, it's a good
idea to have a stable API since the development workflow (or pace) for core
extensions is restricted by the
Morning internals,
I really liked the original idea Dmitry had, with the D-ish syntax.
We could use require and return like:
function foo()
require(input-expr)
return(output-expr) {
/* ... */
}
to avoid adding more keywords.
I'd really appreciate
Will update RFC today, thanks for working on it Dmitry :)
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi Joe
The patch is ready https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1088/files
1) I implemented AST pretty-printer to reconstruct the source. It may be
18, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Joe Watkins pthre...@pthreads.org wrote:
Will update RFC today, thanks for working on it Dmitry :)
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi Joe
The patch is ready https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1088/files
1) I
Morning,
I hear the concern regarding custom exceptions. Things will be used badly
whatever. It's easy to imagine that in a simple application you just don't
need to specify custom exceptions. But in a large codebase, being able to
structure exceptions is invaluable, it gives documentation
Morning internals,
The expectations RFC is now in voting phase:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/expectations#vote
Cheers
Joe
There isn't legitimate technical justification for or against using custom
exceptions.
Since it's entirely based on preference, and the kind of utilitarian
argument you can make for their use,
it's acceptable that this is resolved as part of the vote.
It's not a huge deal.
Cheers
Joe
On Thu,
Very clever ... thanks bob :)
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'd like to show you my recent work on a jumptable optimization for
switches.
1 - 100 of 572 matches
Mail list logo
