On Jan 31, 2015 9:08 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
There is zero reason to discuss what has been approved and followed for
years already.
I will simply post the link to our CS as a reminder and ask
Hi list,
A couple of bug reports have highlighted the fact that our
openssl_encrypt and openssl_decrupt functions have no way of getting
or setting tags required for authenticated cipher modes (i.e. GCM,
CCM, OCB (not sure if this is available in OpenSSL)).
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68962
Hey:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
there already are more than 2 people tell me they are trying to
play with PHP7, but turns out they are playing with PHPNG branch(since
On 31.01.15 01:09, Marcio Almada wrote:
After a period of research along with part of the PHP community I'd
like to present this RFC which aims to improve PHP namespaces.
The RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations
Along with its pull request:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi list,
A couple of bug reports have highlighted the fact that our
openssl_encrypt and openssl_decrupt functions have no way of getting
or setting tags required for authenticated cipher modes (i.e. GCM,
CCM, OCB (not sure if
On 31 January 2015 at 16:13, Jason Gerfen jason.ger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
At the very basic end of the spectrum, we could have openssl_get_tag
and openssl_set_tag, or add an extra parameter to the end of
openssl_encrypt and
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to start discussion about fixing inconsistent foreach statement
behavior.
The implementation is almost done. It not only fixes inconsistencies in a
defined by RFC way but also improves performance in most
On 01/30/2015 09:10 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Nikita got an idea about stopping changing of array/object internal
pointers even in forech by reference.
I've added an additional RFC section:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php7_foreach#additional_behavoir_change
Trivial implementation on
On 31/01/15 01:08, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi all,
This is the RFC for INI set/get alias function deprecation.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_ini_set_get_aliases
Open issue is exception. Almost all aliases should be deprecated, but there
may
be exceptions. I hope everyone agrees to
Hi Phil,
On 31/01/2015 05:14, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
This RFC adds a new method to ReflectionParameter to allow easy access
to a class name in a type hint, avoiding the need to actually load the
class and use `get_class()` or `::class`.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reflectionparameter-getclassname
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 01/30/2015 09:10 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Nikita got an idea about stopping changing of array/object internal
pointers even in forech by reference.
I've added an additional RFC section:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
Hi Phil,
On 31/01/2015 05:14, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
This RFC adds a new method to ReflectionParameter to allow easy access
to a class name in a type hint, avoiding the need to actually load the
class and use
Are we discussing the PEAR installer or everything related to PEAR?
I see no reason to include the PEAR installer by default. Heck, on most distros
it's already split out into a separate package.
If I already have to install a package installer (php-pear) to install extensions using
pecl,
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Markus Fischer [mailto:mar...@fischer.name]
Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Januar 2015 16:11
An: internals@lists.php.net
Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Group Use Declarations
On 31.01.15 01:09, Marcio Almada wrote:
After a period of research
Hi Lester,
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
My only comment would be the one that the rfc displays perfectly ...
In 'Before' if I click on session_cache_limiter I get taken directly to
the manual page for it.
How do I get to the same page in 'After'?
error_log() is a good point. In the future, set_error_handler() might be
changed to be called multiple times with different custom error handlers,
similar to how register_shutdown_function() and spl_autoload_register() act on
multiple calls.
Having a chain of error handlers appending data to
No, I'm not describing this behavior, but I chose the wrong name
keyword, this is not perceived correctly.
My source code examples, it is clear that no returns previous object
from the call stack, me need return references to the holder object.
It's more like the dynamic of this in JavaScript.
Hi all,
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
As I described already, current session management is lazy to delete
obsolete
session data. New behavior is much stricter than now and there is no
exposed
internal data to users(script). The hidden timestamp
Hi Leigh,
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2015 at 11:12, Bas van Beek b...@tobin.nl wrote:
Well the number 1440 itself is not so arbitrary as it's the amount of
minutes in a day. Maybe that's why the number popped up.
In the end 24 minutes
Hi all,
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
As I described already, current session management is lazy to delete
obsolete
session data. New behavior is much stricter than now and
On 01/31/2015 06:55 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
It is great that this is fast, but I wonder (maybe off-topic?) why do
it? I.e. it is clear that in something like:
$a = new Request-withHeaders(...)-withBody(...)
-withEncoding(...)-withETag(...)
the intermediate objects are useless and nobody
On 01/30/2015 12:05 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
On 30/01/2015 13:07, Alexander Lisachenko wrote:
What is wrong here? Emulated immutability. All methods will create a
separate instance of request, so
$baseRequest-withUri()-withMethod()-withHeader()-withBody() will
create
total 5 object instances.
2015-02-01 2:23 GMT+02:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com:
Hi!
If the caller explicitly send the object as an argument, it worsens
loose depending API.
And agreed this code looks weird and not well thought-out:
?php
$holder-object-call($holder);
This code explicitly says
On 31 January 2015 at 17:31, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
2) There's a tiny bit of overlap with scalar type hints,
2) There might be some overlap in the scalar type hint stuff kinda,
but I'd like to think
I also thought about similar approach for object by value case.
I think, first we should accept the proposed in thic RFC behavior. It's
consistent, and more comatible with PHP5. Later, if we decide to merge
zend_array with HashTable we may try to change it.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Jan 31, 2015 4:18
Hi!
The reason for creating circular references, usually due to the need to
bind objects.
But this relationship can often be obtained from the context of the call.
If the API behaves differently depending on who is calling it, or
requires some information from the caller, it should be
On 31/01/15 18:39, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
My only comment would be the one that the rfc displays perfectly ...
In 'Before' if I click on session_cache_limiter I get taken directly to
the manual page for it.
How do
2015-02-01 0:10 GMT+02:00 Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com:
On 31/01/2015 19:41, S.A.N wrote:
No, I'm not describing this behavior, but I chose the wrong name
keyword, this is not perceived correctly.
My source code examples, it is clear that no returns previous object
from the call
Hi!
If the caller explicitly send the object as an argument, it worsens
loose depending API.
And agreed this code looks weird and not well thought-out:
?php
$holder-object-call($holder);
This code explicitly says object-call() is using $holder. It is clear
and unambiguous. If you did
Hi Stas,
On 1 Feb 2015, at 00:55, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
The with*() methods in PSR-7 are documented to return a new instance,
not modify the existing instance. Yes, there's no way in PHP itself to
force that syntactically, which is why documentation exists. :-)
Hi,
On 1 Feb 2015, at 02:09, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
Here, there’s no redundant objects made, but if you pass $a on, it’d
be automatically copied by PHP, so you don’t need to worry about it
being modified.
I don't think it's a particularly good solution in this
Hi, Robert
I agree with Markus, the benefits for users which are using IDEs is
marginal. But I suppose all other users could actually benefit from it.
Yet, with the drawback described by Markus - searching for use statements
without a clever IDE will be more difficult.
No syntax will be
Hi, Markus
[...] with proper tooling I almost
can't remember when I wrote the statements by hand; they usually a) get
automatically managed b) thus alphabetically sorted and c) folded away
in general.
You're basically stating we don't need to improve language syntax because
your
IDE already
2015-02-01 1:52 GMT+02:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com:
Hi!
The reason for creating circular references, usually due to the need to
bind objects.
But this relationship can often be obtained from the context of the call.
If the API behaves differently depending on who is calling
Hi!
The with*() methods in PSR-7 are documented to return a new instance,
not modify the existing instance. Yes, there's no way in PHP itself to
force that syntactically, which is why documentation exists. :-)
Also, in the benchmarks we've run the performance cost of all those new
objects
Hi!
Here, there’s no redundant objects made, but if you pass $a on, it’d
be automatically copied by PHP, so you don’t need to worry about it
being modified.
I don't think it's a particularly good solution in this case, as in many
cases (especially DI setups, many design patterns, etc.) the
On 1 Feb 2015, at 01:23, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 31 January 2015 at 17:31, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
2) There's a tiny bit of overlap with scalar type hints,
2) There might be
Thanks for benchmarks. This time I didn't see so good results myself :)
I actually, started this work with performance in mind, but after
understanding all existing incosistencies, think that consistency is more
important.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Jan 31, 2015 11:18 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf
Hey Larry,
On 1 Feb 2015, at 00:42, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
Immutability, generally, offers two advantages:
1) It makes it easier for humans to reason about code.
2) It makes it easier for compilers/runtimes to reason about code.
For the former, good programming
Hi!
Everything is relative, when there is an experience in a dynamic
context (this) in JS, while unwieldy structure in PHP code look
something old and not comfortable.
In this case I'd suggest you to write your PHP code in wieldy structure
so it would be comfortable ;) I'm not sure what
Hi, Leigh
Feels a lot like Rust
http://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#use-declarations
Yes, indeed Rust language is cited on the references section.
I'm not opposed to the suggestion, we really should have a shorthand
for condensing use declarations
That's good to know, During the
On 31/01/2015 19:41, S.A.N wrote:
No, I'm not describing this behavior, but I chose the wrong name
keyword, this is not perceived correctly.
My source code examples, it is clear that no returns previous object
from the call stack, me need return references to the holder object.
It's more like
Hey:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 01/30/2015 11:13 PM, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 31 Jan 2015 06:04, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com
mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
There is something weird going on with PHP7 and the moodle_page class
and
On 31 January 2015 at 11:12, Bas van Beek b...@tobin.nl wrote:
Well the number 1440 itself is not so arbitrary as it's the amount of minutes
in a day. Maybe that's why the number popped up.
In the end 24 minutes does seem to be fine for the majority of people and
with people that care
Stanislav Malyshev wrote in message news:54cbd947.7050...@gmail.com...
Hi!
Just because that most of the code YOU have seen uses CamelCase does not
mean that CamelCase is the standard. I programmed in other languages
for
over 20 years before I switched to PHP, and in those languages the
Yasuo Ohgaki wrote in message
news:caga2bxzgljrp6i2vdnkdga8dw7nothc9ie17tst40kpbbha...@mail.gmail.com...
Hi Tony,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Tony Marston tonymars...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Pavel Kouril wrote in message
Larry Garfield wrote in message news:54cbb0cd.9010...@garfieldtech.com...
On 1/30/15 4:08 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
Pavel Kouril wrote in message
news:cab6yzuzymbaa5i3f9nsvebg2b7yjvo4ryvpy-eac78rsojx...@mail.gmail.com...
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
Hey Yasuo,
Yes, there can surely be no other reason for the existence of the value,
than that someone wrote it :)
I think what I'm interested in is the reasoning behind it, since it seems
so arbitrary. It's not 20 or 30 minuts, for example.
I have tried emailing the author a long time ago but
Well the number 1440 itself is not so arbitrary as it's the amount of minutes
in a day. Maybe that's why the number popped up.
In the end 24 minutes does seem to be fine for the majority of people and with
people that care about session duration it's really easy to update :)
Op 31 jan.
On Jan 30, 2015 6:09 PM, Tony Marston tonymars...@hotmail.com wrote:
Pavel Kouril wrote in message
news:cab6yzuzymbaa5i3f9nsvebg2b7yjvo4ryvpy-eac78rsojx...@mail.gmail.com...
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
Hi,
snip
Hello,
just one observation -
On Jan 31, 2015 5:57 PM, Tony Marston tonymars...@hotmail.com wrote:
Yasuo Ohgaki wrote in message
news:caga2bxzgljrp6i2vdnkdga8dw7nothc9ie17tst40kpbbha...@mail.gmail.com...
Hi Tony,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Tony Marston tonymars...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Pavel Kouril wrote in
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
There is zero reason to discuss what has been approved and followed for
years already.
I will simply post the link to our CS as a reminder and ask everyone to
read it if they never did:
52 matches
Mail list logo
