Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Denis Gasparin
+1 Denis Da: "Will Fitch" A: "Zeev Suraski" Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com, "PHP internals" Inviato: Martedì, 16 novembre 2010 8:43:39 Oggetto: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion Your answer should have been just that. The overwhelming majori

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Will Fitch
Your answer should have been just that. The overwhelming majority amongst the principal developers of PHP voiced an opinion against it. I can certainly understand the need for a meritocracy in PHP's current state. The benefit of annotations for the masses vs performance hit and complexity isn't c

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Lester Caine
( Try again Zeev changing the pigging address ;) ) Zeev Suraski wrote: I hope I won't stir the pot too much, but with all due respect to the vote of at-best a two digit subset of an arbitrary 3000+ subscribers to internals, there's an overwhelming majority amongst the principal developers of PH

RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
If past experience is any indicator then you’re hardly correct regarding your first statement – being able to do something in PHP was no insurance against proposals suggesting new ways of doing the same thing – often in an improved way. Re: the 2nd part, extending phpdoc would be way less obscu

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Ferenc Kovacs
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:45 AM > > To: Zeev Suraski > > Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP internals > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attr

RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
I hope I won't stir the pot too much, but with all due respect to the vote of at-best a two digit subset of an arbitrary 3000+ subscribers to internals, there's an overwhelming majority amongst the principal developers of PHP that voiced an opinion against it. While we have no official rules or

RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
> -Original Message- > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:45 AM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support > discussion > > On Tue, Nov 16,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
On 11/15/10 10:12 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Well, it changes the signature of that function, so while we don't break >> backward binary compatibility, we break forward compatibility within the >> 5.3 branch. As in, if I change my extension to use this new NoNull >> string flag, it will

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! Well, it changes the signature of that function, so while we don't break backward binary compatibility, we break forward compatibility within the 5.3 branch. As in, if I change my extension to use this new NoNull string flag, it will no longer work on<5.3.3 whereas if I do the if(strlen(fil

RE: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Andi Gutmans
> -Original Message- > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com] > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:25 PM > To: Andi Gutmans > Cc: Stas Malyshev; internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk > > Well, it changes the signature of that function,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
On 11/15/10 9:16 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:21 PM >> To: Rasmus Lerdorf >> Cc: internals >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk >> >> Hi! >> >>>

RE: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Andi Gutmans
> -Original Message- > From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com] > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:21 PM > To: Rasmus Lerdorf > Cc: internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk > > Hi! > > > Ok, I went through all the 5.3 code. This shou

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! Yeah, I thought about that too. Still not something we can do without breaking binary compatibility in the 5.3 branch though and I really would like to at least get all the core functions to guard themselves against null-poisoning there. How adding a new option char to zend_parse_paramete

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
On 11/15/10 8:21 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Ok, I went through all the 5.3 code. This should fix the null poisoning >> problems in 5.3 without breaking binary compatibility: >> >> http://progphp.com/nullpatch.txt > > Looking at this patch, I wonder if it wouldn't be cleaner to add new >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi! Ok, I went through all the 5.3 code. This should fix the null poisoning problems in 5.3 without breaking binary compatibility: http://progphp.com/nullpatch.txt Looking at this patch, I wonder if it wouldn't be cleaner to add new type (string without nulls) in parameter parsing and have

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Kalle Sommer Nielsen
2010/11/16 Pierrick Charron : > +1 +1 for annotations in 5.4 -- regards, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Alec
To help keep track of votes I made a public Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11I7noRyNPbmgeFc1OSAFZfCfY3w3U4kNHpTVds09JCw/edit?hl=en I have recorded the 4 so far, but everytime you vote--or if you notice someone voted and didn't record it on the Google doc, please record it. Thi

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Will Fitch
In conjunction to my vote, I really think Pierrick's proposal and patch is worth another look if we talk implementation. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Pierrick Charron wrote: > +1 > > On 15 November 2010 21:27, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < > guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @Zeev: That t

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Pierrick Charron
+1 On 15 November 2010 21:27, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Zeev: That topic was related to an already built patch, which some > where in favor, some against. That discussion lead to nowhere. > So I opened a thread topic by topic for some democracy approval. As

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Will Fitch
+1 here. I'd love to see the conversation of implementation. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Alec wrote: > I forgot my vote too: +1 > > > On 11/15/2010 9:27 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > >> @Zeev: That topic was related to an already built patch, which some >> where in favor, some aga

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Alec
I forgot my vote too: +1 On 11/15/2010 9:27 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: @Zeev: That topic was related to an already built patch, which some where in favor, some against. That discussion lead to nowhere. So I opened a thread topic by topic for some democracy approval. As soon as we reach

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread guilhermebla...@gmail.com
@Will: Patch works perfectly with PHP 5.3. There is just a minor issue related to APC not caching instances. That patch didn't reach a consensus and that's why I opened a different thread to implement a patch based on poll results. Cheers, On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Will Fitch wrote: > Wo

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread guilhermebla...@gmail.com
@Zeev: That topic was related to an already built patch, which some where in favor, some against. That discussion lead to nowhere. So I opened a thread topic by topic for some democracy approval. As soon as we reach some reasonable consensus, we can start another patch implementation based on what

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Alec
Mostly it is that a new syntax will confuse people and add complexity that PHP doesn't need. The same people don't believe that annotations bring value worthy of adding a new syntax. Short array notation and similar are noted as precedence. That is a bulk of the arguments, but if I have forgot

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Will Fitch
Wow. I should actually look at the RFCs more frequently. I have to say, assuming the patch is valid for PHP 5.3 (which I have no doubt it is), I don't see why this can't be taken more seriously. I know the discussion was brought up a few weeks ago, but what are the objections to injecting this fu

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Alec
The patch is already written and a RFC created by Guilherme: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations . I personally think annotations could make a *great* addition to PHP. I agree with Will that annotations are especially useful for SOAP and XML-RPC. I personally think annotations are useful for A

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Will Fitch
I have certainly wanted them many times - especially when using SOAP. Having WSDL auto-generation without compromising developer documentation and attempting to have user-land code parse phpdoc for this purpose seem{ed,s} counterintuitive. That said, introducing annotations is a HUGE undertaking

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Pierre Joye
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Suggesting phpdoc is used for the purposes mentioned does not mean we don't > understand what we're talking about. I feel like you never used annotations in other languages, did you? Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.ne

RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
Suggesting phpdoc is used for the purposes mentioned does not mean we don't understand what we're talking about. Zeev > -Original Message- > From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:43 AM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PH

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Pierre Joye
hi, The good reason is to actually understand what we are talking about. And seeing phpdoc mentioned in almost all replies tell me that we don't. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > I don't see a point in repeating the discussion we've already had on that > topic several wee

RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
I don't see a point in repeating the discussion we've already had on that topic several weeks ago. There needs to be an overwhelmingly good reason to add a brand new syntax to the language, a whole branch of it in the case of annotations - and there simply isn't. Zeev > -Original Message-

Re: [PHP-DEV] Supporting Binary Notation for Integers

2010-11-15 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > RFC updated with links to GCC, Python, and Ruby syntax definitions. > I just noticed the patch (written against 5.3) doesn't apply cleanly to trunk and will be updating that shortly. In that same vein, I wanted to confirm whether the pro

[PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) support discussion

2010-11-15 Thread guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Hi folks, I'll start a series of topics (in this thread) about meta attribute (aka. Annotations) discussion. So as soon as we agree on each topic I'll open another point to be discussed. Only when we reach some consensus I'll open another topic discussion. I suggest to have a poll for each topic,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/trunk/ UPGRADING.INTERNALS ext/standard/basic_functions.c ext/standard/basic_functions.h main/php_streams.h main/streams/memory.c main/streams/streams.c

2010-11-15 Thread Felipe Pena
Em 15 de novembro de 2010 14:49, Gustavo Lopes escreveu: > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:25:44 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen > wrote: > > Hi > > > > 2010/11/15 Gustavo André dos Santos Lopes : > >> cataphract Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:05:32 > + > >> > >> Revision: http://svn.ph

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] svn: /php/php-src/trunk/ UPGRADING.INTERNALS ext/standard/basic_functions.c ext/standard/basic_funct ions.h main/php_streams.h main/streams/memory.c m ain/streams/streams.c

2010-11-15 Thread Gustavo Lopes
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:25:44 +0100, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > Hi > > 2010/11/15 Gustavo André dos Santos Lopes : >> cataphract                               Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:05:32 + >> >> Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=305346 >> >> Log: >> - Added leak_varia

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Pierre Joye
hi Rasmus, Thanks for the patch! It is great for 5.3 (this problem has been an issue for too long already). However I would like to change the APIs in trunk accordingly to avoid to have checks in every single place where path are used, and indeed to avoid to have bugs in new codes. In short, it s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding path_len to all stream functions in trunk

2010-11-15 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
Ok, I went through all the 5.3 code. This should fix the null poisoning problems in 5.3 without breaking binary compatibility: http://progphp.com/nullpatch.txt There are quite a few places where we can't solve it centrally, so perhaps we need to take the same approach in trunk. This should take