Hi,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> approach." meaning that the previous one is void.
> I don't know why this is ambiguous and
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:54 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> > Le 8 juil. 2019 à 15:20, Christoph M. Becker a écrit :
> >
> > FTR, there is already substr_compare().
>
> `substr_compare()` (as well as `strncmp()` which I am currently using in lieu
> of `str_starts_with()`) forces you to provide
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:59 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:24 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With regards to the array_key_exists() deprecation, the RFC currently
>> says nothing about things like ArrayAccess and object pr
Hi,
With regards to the array_key_exists() deprecation, the RFC currently
says nothing about things like ArrayAccess and object properties that
contain arrays. I'm sure that these are exceptions that aren't meant
to be deprecated, but can you please specify that explicitly? We all
know how little
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:21 PM Lester Caine wrote:
>
> On 13/06/2019 13:04, Andrey Andreev wrote:
> > You have logs to see the errors; relying on your users to report the
> > actual error messages to you is the worst way to do it.
>
> How many website logs can you
Hi,
I too am in favor of a mechanism to strip out sensitive data from
error messages. But Lester, man, you have it all backwards ...
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:37 AM Lester Caine wrote:
>
> On 13/06/2019 08:55, Andreas Heigl wrote:
> >> display_errors=Off in production.
>
> Which give a white sc
Hi,
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:11 PM Alain D D Williams wrote:
>
> I have noticed an error, please can someone with update rights fix it.
>
> https://www.php.net/manual/en/regexp.reference.character-classes.php
>
> 7th paragraph contains:
>
> However, if the "]" is escaped with a backslash it is i
Hello,
I personally am not happy with the outcome of the vote. I think
there's no practical benefit to be gained from the proposal and I
don't even understand what has urged the author to make it; I voted No
on both questions.
However, what's done is done and these post-vote protests are getting
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM Benjamin Morel wrote:
>
> Seeds could even be dangerous here, as these numbers are supposed to be
> cryptographically secure. If you need a seedable PRNG for testing, just use
> rand().
>
Not only it could be dangerous, it would beat the entire purpose of
rand
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:02 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:38, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> OK, so why not flip it and make it always available instead? I'm aware
>> of the potential XML conflict, but I've personally never seen it, so
&
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:09 PM Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> 1.) Update the documentation to add booleans to the second list
> 2.) Update the documentation to remove the second list - anything not in
> the first list is not affected.
> 3.) Update the language so that ++ and -- cast booleans to int
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:16 PM Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
>
> On Mo, 2019-03-25 at 09:38 -0500, Sara Golemon wrote:
> >
> > As we stand now, code using short open tags works when those tags are
> > enabled. As we'd stand in the future, that code would not work.
> > That
> > level of BC break
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:37 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Regardless of what you did, actually obtaining full voting rights
> meant you had to ask for a VCS account, and have a reasonably good
> explanation on why you need one - enough to convince one of the folks
> with admin rights on m
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:32 AM Kris Craig wrote:
> Stripping any existing contributors of our voting rights is a non-starter for
> me, period. Any changes must not be applied retroactively, as that would
> just lead to all kinds of problems and severe animosity/drama.
>
> The eligibi
Hi,
I was avoiding this, but since the discussion has already turned into
all about who gets to vote, I might as well ...
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> the barrier to obtaining a vote is ridiculously low.
You keep saying that, but it hasn't been explained how it is so.
I
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM azjezz wrote:
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 4, 2019 2:32 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted
> > to reply t
Hi,
I could nitpick on most of the proposed plan, but I really only wanted
to reply to this:
> > * A new home page, not a "news" page, but a page simply showing the PHP
> > Logo, a code example maybe and
> > the download link [3].
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [3]
> > https://camo.githubusercontent.com
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:28 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Secondly - the threshold and voting eligibility are not, in any way,
> independent. They're two fundamental aspects of the same topic - how votes
> take place. A 2/3 majority out of a subset of ~200-300 people is very
> different from
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Arnold Daniels
wrote:
>
>
> Please have a look at
> * https://wiki.php.net/rfc/script_only_include - PHP RFC: Introduce script
> only include/require
> * https://wiki.php.net/rfc/allow_url_include - PHP RFC: Precise URL include
> control
>
> Both describe the
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Markus Fischer wrote:
>
> On 21.09.18 14:07, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Rowan Collins
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Arnold,
>>>
>>> Please remember to click "Reply A
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Hi Arnold,
>
> Please remember to click "Reply All" / "Reply List" rather than just
> "Reply", to make sure the list is included in your replies. Right now, most
> of us are only seeing half the conversation:
> https://externals.io/messa
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Arnold Daniels wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:50 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Arnold Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> > Variable includes have
Hi again,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Arnold Daniels wrote:
>
> Variable includes have proper purposes, like for a (PSR-4) autoloader. This
> can't be simply replaced with an 'if' statement. Other reasons are module
> inclusion and generated code.
>
Of course, there are a few valid applica
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Arnold Daniels
wrote:
> There are many security issues that arise from not sanitizing a variable
> before using it in an include (eg `include $script;`).
>
> The filter extension is intended to prevent this kind of security issues. A
> validation filter would
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 20.09.2018 at 08:15, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
>
>> yesterday I submitted https://bugs.php.net/76906 to report that I wasn't
>> able to set the "samesite" attribute on cookies while I followed what's
>> been approved in https://wik
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Colin O'Dell wrote:
> Hello Internals,
>
> I seem to be unable to access my wiki account (colinodell /
> colinod...@php.net). My credentials are not being accepted and the
> password reset functionality does not recognize my username. I am
> therefore unable
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Christoph M. Becker
>> wrote:
>>> On 03.09.2018 at 17:02, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>>
>>>> I raise
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 03.09.2018 at 17:02, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> I raised this issue back in January[1], but then got distracted and
>> completely forgot about it ... sorry about that.
>
> Thanks for having raised the
Hi,
I raised this issue back in January[1], but then got distracted and
completely forgot about it ... sorry about that.
Would the change target 7.3 or 7.4?
[1] https://externals.io/message/101626
Cheers,
Andrey.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: h
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:27 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> >
>> > One thing regarding implementation.
>> > Since
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> One thing regarding implementation.
> Since the internet RFC has only 2 values for "samesite", the parameter can
> be
> bool rather than string so that users can avoid "broken security by a typo".
> If "samesite" has more than 2 values,
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:54 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Last, but certainly not least, we talk about $expires here only becase
>> that's how it's (currently) named in either documentation and/or
>
Hi again,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:16 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> But while I didn't quote that part of your
>> message, you did also suggest to apply the same decision to other
>> functions and s
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:26 PM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> All other "options" are actual *cookie attribute* names, as defined by
>> the various IETF RFCs, while "lifeti
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Pedro Magalhães wrote:
>
> With this being said, would anyone oppose an implementation where all the
> options (including lifetime) are included in the array parameter?
>
Yes.
All other "options" are actual *cookie attribute* names, as defined by
the variou
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> isset($foo) OR $foo = 'bar'; (and similar variations using empty()
>> and/or &&) is another pattern I use often to set fallback values for
>>
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Den tir. 10. jul. 2018 kl. 20.22 skrev Larry Garfield
> :
>> "do() or die()" code is/was very common in example code, tutorials, and other
>> intro material because it means you don't need to think about error handling.
>
> I per
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> I'm disappointed by the last minute kitchen-sink dump of RFCs being
> raised, rushed through discussion, and voted on with minimal periods.
> While I'm all for delivering useful features to end users, I don't
> want us to get in the habit
Hi again,
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 29.06.2018 at 16:54, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Readline is the only extension in your list that I would b
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>> Readline is the only extension in your list that I would be sad about
>> losing. I use it every day, I guess a lot of devs do.
>
> It's not "losing", per se, as the code doesn't get erased, it just moved
> to PECL. All di
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Just for casual discussion at this point:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/3297
>
> switch ($a) {
> case FOO:
> // Works exactly as current behavior.
> break;
> case == FOO:
> // Nearly identical, though not usin
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, CHU Zhaowei wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>But that being said, I do support the proposal. I understand people
>>opposed to removing features for no reason, but nobody needs this to
>>be an operator, it's not a widely-used one, and we all know if it was
>>proposed for ad
Hi,
I agree with the criticism towards the RFC contents raised so far.
It's obviously put together with as little effort as possible, and the
cheeky version number doesn't help either ... Treating the RFC process
as a joke doesn't get you support.
But that being said, I do support the proposal. I
Hi,
What's not obvious (to me at least) here is why is the current
behavior preventing a ("sensible", as the RFC desribes it)
implementation of function autoloading? That seems to be a major
motivation factor for the proposal, yet doesn't seem to be explained
anywhere.
Cheers,
Andrey.
--
PHP In
Hi,
> Realistically, how often do you override strlen? If I say "never", I
> probably would be close enough for all practical purposes.
It's an ironic coincidence that you use strlen() as an example.
Because it and substr() are possibly the most likely to be overriden,
where we need code to be by
Hi,
I've got mixed feelings about this ...
On one hand, I've always avoided compact() because it is magic; a hack
that was very obviously made because there was no language construct
for it. This would've spared me lots of annoyance with code that was
already otherwise boring.
But on the other ha
Hi again,
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Niklas Keller wrote:
>
> I think we only have to bump the minimum version once 7.4 is out, because
> only 7.4 will change the default. You only get a deprecation notice now,
> which is totally fine.
>
I disagree that it's totally fine. I mean, it's tech
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> (Seriously though, who's on php 7.2, but hasn't updated ICU for that
> long?)
Probably nobody yet. The issue was uncovered in code that assumed the
constant was available on 5.4+, as noted in the manual, but it turned
out there's people on 5.
Hello,
It seems that an important detail was missed in the RFC to deprecate
INTL_IDNA_VARIANT_2003 in PHP 7.2.0 (and later remove it). The only
other option available - INTL_IDNA_VARIANT_UTS46 - may not be
available at all, as PHP has ICU 4.0 as its minimum requirement, but
support for UTS#46 was
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Lito wrote:
> No $foo ?: 'default' , it's only equivalent to (isset($foo) && $foo) ? $foo
> : 'default' if $foo exists.
>
> Also PHP has added ?? as null-coalescing operator that works with undefined
> variables/attributes/keys, my proposal is an improvement
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with Paul. It would be di
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
> filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
> every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering
> as well.
Hi again,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Andrey Andreev" wrote in message
> news:CAPhkiZyXgxi-7vWdqA2hxni9SvycuN_pWOOM8un8mUo5qJ=0...@mail.gmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Tony Marsto
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>
>> Far better that that
>> problem is taken away from the file system (which should be clean, robust
>> and
>> fast) and if you want case independence put it up at the application
>> layer.
>
>
> You try telling that to the billions of W
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> The reason why latter is a lot more secure is related to Andrey's
> misunderstanding.
> He said "when ikm is cryptographically strong, salt wouldn't add no more
> entropy.
> so salt does not matter". (not exact sentence)
> What he said
Hi Frederik,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Frederik Bosch | Genkgo
wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> While I agree on your statement that back-porting is suboptimal, I do not
> agree on the fact that I said that there was no time to wait. I submitted
> the RFC, awaited the opinions, changed the document
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Lars Strojny wrote:
>> Sounds good! Let's vote in getting it in first and then we can have a 2nd
>> RFC (and vote) if it should land in 7.2
>>
> Mmmm, not quite. IF you want to aim for 7.2, do it now in
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 08.08.2017 at 18:07, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Christoph M. Becker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29.01.2017 at 16:52, Nikita Popov wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nikita Popov
>>> wrote:
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>
> ftr; I'd vote in favor of several BC breaking things to do with
> autoglobals, among them:
>
> * Make them objects (though ArrayAccess based for less hostile BC breakage)
> * Make most of them read-only (offsetGet(), but no offsetSet)
>
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Craig Duncan wrote:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> Thanks for your input. Would you vote yes for throwing an exception?
>>
>>
> Just to clarify exceptions are no go for 7.x. It would have to be 8.x and
> it woul
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Craig Duncan wrote:
> Hi internals.
>
> As my initial thread about introducing warnings to the JSON functions was
> not immediately flooded with disagreement I took the liberty of creating an
> RFC for official discussion.
>
> The proposal is to have `json_enc
HI,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Andreas Treichel wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
>> 1. The wording here implies that these are the *only* attributes
>> allowed. In the interest of forward-compatibility, I'd allow arbitrary
>> attributes as well.
>
>
> I just try to implement something like this, to al
Hello Andreas,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Andreas Treichel wrote:
> Hello Andrey,
>
>> That's what I was afraid of, and what I suggested be changed.
>>
>> If we had a similar, array-of-attributes API that did NOT ignore or
>> trigger warnings for unknown attributes, everybody using PHP woul
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>
> Why on earth should you need to use HTTPS for a website that does not deal
> with personal information? Nothing on that website can possibly be classed
> as "sensitive" so what would be the point?
>
Because HTTPS isn't just about encr
Hi,
Not realizing I was looking at EOL dates, I (unintentionally) provided
some wrong info yesterday:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> - HttpOnly was released with PHP 5.2.0 in January 2011 - just 3 months prior
> to IETF RFC 6265 (April 2011) becoming a
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Andreas Treichel wrote:
> Hello Andrey,
>
>>> $options are equal to the optional parameters of setcookie and
>>> setrawcookie.
>>> $options may contain:
>>>
>>> expires: int
>>> path: string
>>> domain: string
>>> secure: bool
>>> httponly: bool
>
>
>>
Hi again,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Frederik Bosch | Genkgo
wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. If we are going to wait for http_cookie_set,
> then my guess will be that it will take a while before we see samesite
> cookie implemented. While I totally agree there is need for
Hi Frederik,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Frederik Bosch | Genkgo
wrote:
> LS,
>
> Today I finished writing the RFC for implementing same site cookies in PHP,
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/same-site-cookie. I am happy to receive your
> remarks on the proposal, and improve when necessary.
>
> Fo
Hi Dan,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On 18 July 2017 at 00:22, Andreas Treichel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i want some feedback, about the following idea before i write a rfc.
>>
>> ... Most of them
>> are optional and extensions (e.g. same-site) make it even more messy.
>
>
>
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Andreas Treichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i want some feedback, about the following idea before i write a rfc.
>
> Problem:
> The functions setcookie and setrawcookie has many parameters. Most of them
> are optional and extensions (e.g. same-site) make it even
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:12 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Opening vote for : https://wiki.php.net/rfc/url-opcode-cache
>
> Voting period will end Monday, July 3, 2017, 00:00 UTC.
>
You should start a new thread to announce the vote start, or people
not actively engaged in the (alr
Hi,
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
> Regarding the big change you suggest, making protected/private methods return
> false unless a new third parameter is true in is_callable():
>
> I think you need to make your intention a *lot* clearer under the "Private
> and protect
Hi,
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> The RFC specifically didn't mention LSPbecause that is separate
> from co/contravariance. It's unfortunate for other people to be
> throwing the two around at you with a lack of precision.
>
Perhaps this was the issue ... I was und
Hi Marco,
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying, but fail to find a source that says replacing stdClass
>> with mixed/any/etc is ok.
>
>
> It is OK for a subtype to han
Hi,
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
>
> I also had a look at the GitHub discussion, and I think that the things
> that were written there have nothing to do with your concern. The people
> commenting there simply did not understand LSP.
>
Well, here's one who doesn't claim
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Adam Baratz wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm think this problem might've cropped up again. I didn't receive
>> > > this
>> > > message:
>> > > http://news.php.net/php.internals/99052
>> > >
>> > > I only heard about it
Hi,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> 1. Object variance should be implemented when we have generalized
> variance for all types. By special casing it now we open ourselves to the
> possibility that its implementation or semantics will differ from the
> generalized solut
Hi Adam,
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Adam Baratz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm think this problem might've cropped up again. I didn't receive this
> message:
> http://news.php.net/php.internals/99052
>
> I only heard about it because it was mentioned in a PR thread.
>
I remember finding this one in
Hi Andrea,
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hey Andrey,
>
> Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> I'm not surprised by the suggestion for targeting 8.0, but perhaps we
>> could think of a way to conditionally disable the mangling in 7.x and
>> t
Hi,
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 02.05.2017 at 12:56, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> With parse_str() usage without a second parameter being deprecated, I
>> was looking to possibly drop the behavior where it replaces spaces and
>> dots
Hi all,
With parse_str() usage without a second parameter being deprecated, I
was looking to possibly drop the behavior where it replaces spaces and
dots with underscores in the result array, and ... As it often turns
out - it's not that simple, because it re-uses the code that handles
GPC vars.
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>>
>> If you want examples, search GitHub for PHP code utilizing HKDF - you
>> will see that most projects use it without a salt, including
>> https://github.com/defuse/php-encryption - pretty much the best PHP
>> userspace crypto library t
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Niklas,
>
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Niklas Keller wrote:
>>
>>
>> What the... there were multiple concerns regarding the changes already.
>> I'm hereby expressing another strong -1 on these.
>
>
> Instead of posting your fee
On Mar 16, 2017 2:01 AM, "Marco Pivetta" wrote:
What changes is the interface of the `(array)` operator.
I understand what you mean, I just disagree that it constitutes a BC break
in the sense that no existing code would break/misbehave by simply updating
to a PHP version including the feature.
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Correct: passing an object that implements `__toArray()` to an API that
> uses an `(array)` cast internally will break or misbehave, if this feature
> is added to the language.
>
I'm not particularly interested in the idea anyway, but i
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Benoît Burnichon wrote:
>> I like the idea kind of, but would this remove the ability to cast to
>> array all classes not implementing __toArray, as is the case with
>> __toString? This would be a HUGE BC if so:
>>
>> $ php -r 'class Foo {public $foo = "foobar
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 2:53 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>> I don't disagree with that in general, but strictly rejecting strings
>> and other non-integer values would alleviate the problem for a
>> majority of cases; i.e. w
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 11 March 2017 13:23:16 GMT+00:00, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>Ironically enough, the following code executes silently:
>>
>>$array = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
>>sort($array, '2234
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 3/10/2017 11:57 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>> Yes, they're valid string values, but the examples I gave were meant
>> to show that context can make them predictably invalid, and hence why
>> strict typing is desi
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 10:57:42 GMT+00:00, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>I'm not really interested in making "strict mode" less strict - it's
>>already opt-in and non-enforceable.
>>I want ways to write stonge
Hi Rowan,
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 23:32, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>
>> For example, a Cookie object may have the cookie attributes (domain,
>> path, etc.) as value objects, but they can easily be created from raw
>> strings,
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 12:47 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>> How can "any other scalar value" work? Using the cookie and headers examples:
>>
>> - booleans can be used as On/Off flags for the secure and httpOnly
>>
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 12:32 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Rowan Collins
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't understand what you're using this check for that means you
>>
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> I still don't understand what you're using this check for that means you
> want to exclude integers. If you're passing on the value to anything that
> actually needs a string, you're doing a string cast, either explicitly or
> implicitly, s
Hi Andrea,
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Fleshgrinder wrote:
>>
>> On 3/8/2017 7:36 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The question is rather &qu
Hi again,
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> I think it comes down to what you're trying to achieve: the language can't
> have pseudo-types for every possible combination of types, so if you want to
> detect integers as one case, and other things that can be converted to
> s
Hi Ryan,
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote:
> Sorry, accidently sent in the middle of typing that...
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ryan Pallas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>>
>&
Hi Rowan,
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> I think this is an interesting area to explore, but do think the scope needs
> to be widened slightly.
>
>
> On 8 March 2017 12:25:54 GMT+00:00, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>>I ultimately would
Hi all,
I submitted a GitHub PR* to allow objects implementing __toString() to
*optionally* pass is_string() validation. More verbose wording of my
motivation can be seen in the PR description, but here are the main
points:
- Simpler way to do checks like: is_string($var) ||
method_exists($var, '
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Michał wrote:
> Hello PHP internals,
> Scalar types declarations were introduced in PHP 7.0 but it was not
> possible to pass null as a default value to function/method. It was finally
> done by a small workaround described in documentation as "The declarati
1 - 100 of 258 matches
Mail list logo