On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of a collaborative wiki with
inline-threaded comments...
-Original Message-
From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:php...@ehrhardt.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:00 PM
To:
hi,
To all readers of this exact thread. No, we won't install a forum on
php.net or nowhere else to discuss php.net issues. We have mailing
lists, and it works well.
We also do IRC discussions and post summaries here from time to time,
but that's somehow a personal matter.
Please keep focus on
Clint Priest wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of a collaborative wiki with
inline-threaded comments...
Actually just using the wiki better would work, but it tends to get even more
messy without someone moderating everything.
I know people don't like my stance, but when one is
Hi,
Can I please have a wiki account?
Regards,
Marcello
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Clint Priest wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of a collaborative wiki with
inline-threaded comments...
Actually just using the wiki better would work, but it tends to get even
more messy without someone
Marcello likes to write a RFC
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Marcello Duarte
marcello.dua...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can I please have a wiki account?
Regards,
Marcello
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Hi!
That makes some sense, still the issue Nikita brought up is that the
__getHours() should not be callable.
I don't see any use case for this requirement. What *requires* that it
won't be callable and why it is so necessary that we introduce
additional complexity into the engine just to do
Hi!
It is foolish to think that these two bits of code are behaviorally different:
class Entity {
DateTime $last_modified;
}
The are different because this one looks like a strongly typed variable
which brings with it a lot of connotations which aren't immediately
obvious, and in fact
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Type hinting in parameters is a really good thing, and it doesn't
transformed PHP in a strongly typed language.
It however gave a permission to people to try sneak in strong-typedness
through various backdoors
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
So the above would actually introduce an get/set accessor rather than a
property, correct?
Preferably it would a faster C based implementation for the check, but
in principle it could also use accessors to achieve the goal.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Last thing: I agree with Clint and you. If it was early checked, it
would be better. But the current type hinting is far better than nothing
at all. Yes, we can't lint it, but it was pretty useful a big number
No,
Hi!
I see this argument crop up with every typehint discussion and just
don't understand it at all. Why would you want to check the variable
type everywhere? You just assign it and if it doesn't work, then you
get an error. Just like it should be. I mean, do you seriously check
No, you don't
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
That makes some sense, still the issue Nikita brought up is that the
__getHours() should not be callable.
I don't see any use case for this requirement. What *requires* that it
won't be callable and why it is
That would be a big help, when there are 14 topics brought up in a single
email, it generates 24 - 36 replies. I tried to separate the topics with new
email threads but that led to cross-topic issues as well.
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
I see this argument crop up with every typehint discussion and just
don't understand it at all. Why would you want to check the variable
type everywhere? You just assign it and if it doesn't work, then you
get an
Hi!
You have already written seven mails all saying how much complexity
this would introduce. Could you maybe elaborate a bit on that? How
would it make anything more complex? I mean, the only really
Any code that deals with methods would now have to consider - is this
regular method or
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
You have already written seven mails all saying how much complexity
this would introduce. Could you maybe elaborate a bit on that? How
would it make anything more complex? I mean, the only really
Any code that
This isn't the way isset() works, isset() will return true for a
variable with a value of 0
Exactly my point. Your code (with != NULL) will return false while real
isset() will return true.
Stas, please see this execution output, your arguments about isset()/unset()
are just plain wrong:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
This isn't the way isset() works, isset() will return true for a
variable with a value of 0
Exactly my point. Your code (with != NULL) will return false while real
isset() will return true.
Stas, please see this
I've been re-reading the last few days of posts to collect what is to be
changed about the RFC on what has seemed to come to a consensus and my
apologies Stas, I did not catch exactly what you meant by this statement:
Exactly my point. Your code (with != NULL) will return false while real
2012/10/17 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
No, you don't get an error. You'd get an error in compiled language. In
dynamic language, your client gets an error when his site is launched
and instead of happy launch his users get white screens. To avoid that,
you'd need to add checks - or
I acquiesce to this issue, I agree that declaring a property in a class which
implements an interface which has designated an accessor does indeed satisfy
the accessor.
But I think it would be very poor programming practice to do it.
Anyone else have anything to say about this issue?
Nuno - just a PS to the last note. It is (mainly) the task allocation
across processors which means that running tests in parallel on a 4-way
machine is not 4 times as fast as running them in sequence.
Here are some results from a run on my 2-way Mac -
(sorry if this is a double-post, I finger-fudged pretty hard)
Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com writes:
hi,
To all readers of this exact thread. No, we won't install a forum on
php.net or nowhere else to discuss php.net issues. We have mailing
lists, and it works well.
Just to throw in the
On 17/10/12 11:43, Pierre Joye wrote:
It is about hi jacking discussions with totally irrelevant topics,
repetitive, nonconstructive posts in rows, in all possible ways.
The issue is that the proposed solution (a forum) does not solve
irrelevant topics being mixed into a discussion about a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jeremiah Dodds
jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, it's a little ridiculous to expect people to figure out a new
reader or whatever. Luckily, forums are jut a web version of
USENET. There are a few existing tools that take a mailing list and
mirror it
Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jeremiah Dodds
jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, it's a little ridiculous to expect people to figure out a new
reader or whatever. Luckily, forums are jut a web version of
USENET. There are a few existing
On 17-10-2012 20:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jeremiah Dodds
jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, it's a little ridiculous to expect people to figure out a new
reader or whatever. Luckily, forums are jut a web version of
USENET. There are a few existing tools
This request was given a +1 from Wez - does anyone else want to provide
feedback? If not, can we get it merged to trunk and queued for release?
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Will Fitch willfi...@php.net wrote:
Going to bump this thread.
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=62593
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Maciek Sokolewicz
maciek.sokolew...@gmail.com wrote:
NNTP works great! The only pain in the ass is that it's hellishly slow and
very very often times out, making the reading of longer threads (like this
one) take... ages...
Perhaps it could be mirrored / load
I was really referring to another tool to collaborate on an RFC document,
something where comment threads can be started and replied to from within the
context/section of the RFC that the comment belongs to.
Ive looked at a few other wikis and some have this capability... Github could
be
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Marcello likes to write a RFC
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Marcello Duarte
marcello.dua...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Can I please have a wiki account?
People who cannot read do not get wiki karma:
32 matches
Mail list logo
