On 16/02/15 15:31, François Laupretre wrote:
- There is a lack of expertise at the core level of the code, so
collaboration on each feature is low. RFCs tend to have a single
sponsor, who has to see the whole process through to the end.
- One thing we can encourage, while indirect in this
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dmitry,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
The type checks in PHP7 is quite cheap (2-3 CPU instructions). Strict
or
weak check doesn't make any difference for fast path (the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any value in deciding the initial syntax for 7.0, and
implementing only non-parameterised annotations, i.e. you can call
hasAnnotation(string): bool but nothing else?
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 16:31 +0100, François Laupretre wrote:
De : Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com]
Saying that's enough isn't even a productive comment. Enough what?
What is it you are asking to happen next?
Maybe an initiative to write an RFC about the rules we should
Hi,
De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary adjustments
that
where required and let people vote on it? Start with
2015-02-16 17:26 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@php.net:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: rdlow...@gmail.com [mailto:rdlow...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Daniel Lowrey
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 5:13 PM
To:
On 16 February 2015 at 16:42, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Hi,
De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make
this will work, of course, and robust implementation wouldn't take more
than a day :)
but it'll require user-level parser again. no big advantage in comparison
to doc-block.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikita Popov wrote on
2015-02-16 18:42 GMT+02:00 François Laupretre franc...@php.net:
Hi,
De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.com
wrote:
This bickering already jeopardized the type hinting RFC's how many times?
3 as I recall?
Zeev was kind enough to reach out privately prior to your message and we
began exchanged mails trying to better understand
Hi!
The test there is self explainable. Of course, annotations just provide
a way to add metadata, but doesn't define attribute names or the ways
they are going to be used. Only Reflection API to read.
Looks fine, but I'm not sure how one can use the AST that the reflection
returns. Is it for
As announced yesterday, I put the RFC into vote now.
Voting period is 8 days, it will end 24th of February.
The RFC is here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/date.timezone_warning_removal
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/date.timezone_warning_removal
I also slightly reworded the feedback section in reply to
I've synced with current git and seem to have the files I expect for
interbase, but when trying to run a clean build of the core stuff it no
longer compiles ...
For example
/srv/repo/php-src_master/ext/opcache/ZendAccelerator.c:2005:19: error:
‘zend_array’ has no member named ‘pDestructor’
Seems
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net
wrote:
Hi,
De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make
On 16.02.15 20:46, Lester Caine wrote:
On 16/02/15 18:34, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
/srv/repo/php-src_master/ext/opcache/ZendAccelerator.c:2005:19: error:
‘zend_array’ has no member named ‘pDestructor’
Seems to be due to
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
The test there is self explainable. Of course, annotations just provide
a way to add metadata, but doesn't define attribute names or the ways
they are going to be used. Only Reflection API to read.
Looks
Hi,
De : morrison.l...@gmail.com [mailto:morrison.l...@gmail.com] De la part
Also, I know people REALLY want scalar types in PHP 7.0 but honestly
all we need to do is reserve the keywords so there is no BC impact and
then we can do it at any point during the PHP 7 lifecycle. This is my
Rowan, thanks for your response.
Wow that regex is pretty intense. A new filter type sounds like a
reasonable idea to me. I'm not sure if I'll be able to offer any
improvements myself (although I will look into it shortly here). I I do
know that Google announced last August that they plan to
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I've synced with current git and seem to have the files I expect for
interbase, but when trying to run a clean build of the core stuff it no
longer compiles ...
For example
Am Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:00:41 +0200
schrieb Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.com:
Hallo,
Right now we need a breakthrough event - get type hints into the language
at all. The most sensible thing to do it is to add basic type hints that
work like the current conversion rules, maybe add some
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:42 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Hi,
- the fact that the RFC supports single types only, like the previous 'return
type' RFC. While it is easier to implement, it opens several issues as
multiply-typed arguments are an integral part of the PHP
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
purposes. Support for annotations
this won't implement features necessary for phpDocumentor, Doctrine, etc.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any value in
On 16/02/15 18:34, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I've synced with current git and seem to have the files I expect for
interbase, but when trying to run a clean build of the core stuff it no
longer compiles ...
For example
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:42 AM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Hi,
De : Arvids Godjuks [mailto:arvids.godj...@gmail.com]
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
purposes. Support for annotations was proposed long time ago:
Dmitry Stogov wrote on 16/02/2015 18:41:
this won't implement features necessary for phpDocumentor, Doctrine, etc.
I know.
Like I say, it's just a way of keeping things moving, rather than saying
eh, maybe next year.
It allows us to formally agree the feature, the roadmap, the basic
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by
Hi Dmitry
De : Dmitry Stogov [mailto:dmi...@zend.com]
I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1.
Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default.
This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type hints.
All are tired from endless arguing.
Yes, but that's not
Hi Dmitry,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
purposes. Support for
Hi Dmitry,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
purposes. Support for
I'd like to show you my recent work on a jumptable optimization for switches.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
It is a fully transparent optimization of switches, by putting a new
ZEND_SWITCH opcode at the top of the switch in case we can build
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
De : Pavel Kouril [mailto:pajou...@gmail.com]
Hello,
I know this is probably a pretty unpopular opinion in PHP (based on
the replies I got in the other thread), but different values for
parameters should be IMHO
De : Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
I know it is very easy for people to say Well, that v0.3 that I
didn't like has been withdrawn, so let's just crack on and do some
other new thing.
It's not so easy. It would be easier to do as you suggest. And you can still do
it in your
On 16/02/15 20:24, Martin Jansen wrote:
OK I'm working off multiple local copies of the code base so vcsclean is
not usable. I suspect it would wipe the eclipse project files anyway.
IIRC vcsclean essentially runs `git clean -f -X`. That last parameter is
important because it instructs git to
De : Pavel Kouril [mailto:pajou...@gmail.com]
Hello,
I know this is probably a pretty unpopular opinion in PHP (based on
the replies I got in the other thread), but different values for
parameters should be IMHO solved by method overloading and such.
The question is not that it's
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
this won't implement features necessary for phpDocumentor, Doctrine, etc.
Just be careful here with phpDocumentor, it does not use annotations but
really needs docblocks instead.
Today the overlap between it and doctrine and
On 16 February 2015 at 22:00, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com wrote:
I know it is very easy for people to say Well, that v0.3 that I
didn't like has been withdrawn, so let's just crack on and do some
other new thing. but I would have to ask people to consider that v0.3
had two thirds
-Original Message-
From: p...@golemon.com [mailto:p...@golemon.com] On Behalf Of Sara
Golemon
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:58 AM
To: franc...@php.net
Cc: Philip Sturgeon; Arvids Godjuks; Jefferson Gonzalez; Rowan Collins;
PHP
internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Reviving scalar
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com
wrote:
On 02/16/2015 10:31 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
- The leadership of the language is left to consensus, so that when
consensus cannot be reached, someone has to take on the role of mediator
/ chairman / leader
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.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
It is a fully transparent optimization of switches, by
Hi Nikita,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
I would propose exactly Andrea's 0.1.
Most people were agree to support weak type hints by default.
This proposal won't prevent feature addition of optional strict type hints.
Sorry, but I'll have to repeat what has
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.
Am 16.02.2015 um 21:39 schrieb François Laupretre:
If we deprecate using bare class names as type hints and replace it with the
'object(classname)' syntax, we can reserve keywords for 7.0 and, maybe 7.1
but potential name clashes should be away in 7.2.
This is a huge BC break and will
On 02/16/2015 03:47 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
Am 17.02.2015 um 00:30 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com
mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com:
On 02/16/2015 03:04 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
I'd like to show you my recent work on a jumptable optimization for
switches.
Le 16/02/2015 23:50, François Laupretre a écrit :
So, IMO, the RFC is dead, whatever 2/3 or 3/4 we may have.
Once it was clear that both camps would never agree, with every PHP
founders against it, pushing it was useless. We're not electing a
president, we're trying to ensure we make the right
Might I remind everyone that time is not on our side here - feature freeze
is looming and actual work has to be done.
The part you must understand is: Strict type hints are possible if someone
cares to implement them with a next RFC. Be our guest. Right now we need to
sort out the basic stuff -
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net
wrote:
Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why
don't you do it ?
I will play the game, stop working on my proposal, and
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
I still disagree strongly that it serves everyone's needs. The internal
API and APIs provided by extensions are completely messed up by this
approach. Userspace authors get the choice when they write their code.
Even if
On 02/16/2015 03:04 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
I'd like to show you my recent work on a jumptable optimization for switches.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
It is a fully transparent optimization of switches, by putting a new
ZEND_SWITCH
On 16 February 2015 at 22:50, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
it is clear that we don't have consensus on this topic. So, IMO, the RFC is
dead, whatever 2/3 or 3/4 we may have.
It's okay for people to disagree about things. And we have voting to
allow us to resolve those
Am 17.02.2015 um 00:30 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com:
On 02/16/2015 03:04 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
I'd like to show you my recent work on a jumptable optimization for switches.
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1048
It is a fully
On 17 February 2015 at 00:22, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for taking over.
I like use strict and declare as top-level only most.
That would be this no vote changed to a yes.
And I'd also like to say thank you Sara for taking over.
cheers
Dan
--
PHP Internals - PHP
On 02/16/2015 03:58 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why don't
you do it ?
I will play the game, stop working on my proposal, and vote 'yes' again.
But don't
Thanks Sara for taking over,
For myself both ?php strict would seal the deal, but use strict; is also
an option I would endorse.
Despite mentioning not scoping union types, I feel like a numeric type
would make a lot of sense and bring in more consensus to the list, fixing
the all famous sin()
Hi Francois,
Between my day job and my local user group meetup, I haven't had as much
time as I'd like to read and respond to this. You've got some great
suggestions here, though, so I'm going to rush through and add some
thoughts before I go to bed.
On 16 February 2015 at 15:31, François
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 02/16/2015 03:58 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why don't
you do it ?
I will play
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why don't
you do it ?
I will play the game, stop working on my proposal, and vote 'yes' again.
But don't ask me to do it in your place.
If nobody else
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Alexander Lisachenko
lisachenko...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-16 15:12 GMT+03:00 Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de:
but what is the API of an AST node and how does the visitor look like?
I have a draft for that:
We don't have final design yet. just idea(s) and a question - should we try
to do it for PHP7 or later or not at all.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Cesar Rodas ce...@rodas.me wrote:
On 16/02/15 13:40, Alexander Lisachenko wrote:
2015-02-16 15:31 GMT+03:00 Benjamin
The type checks in PHP7 is quite cheap (2-3 CPU instructions). Strict or
weak check doesn't make any difference for fast path (the same 2-3
instructions). The slow patch for weak checks is going to be a bit more
expensive.
Well, not really. It's 2-3 CPU instructions once you have the
Dmitry,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
The type checks in PHP7 is quite cheap (2-3 CPU instructions). Strict or
weak check doesn't make any difference for fast path (the same 2-3
instructions). The slow patch for weak checks is going to be a bit more
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 18:58, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
If nobody else does it, I will.
I think Andrea's 0.3 proposal was extremely well balanced, served
everyone's needs whether they would admit it or not, and who's only
failing (subjectively termed) was the use of declare(). I
On 02/16/2015 10:31 AM, François Laupretre wrote:
- The leadership of the language is left to consensus, so that when
consensus cannot be reached, someone has to take on the role of mediator
/ chairman / leader for the feature, and try to push through a compromise.
I have no democratic
On 02/16/2015 06:58 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net wrote:
Once again, anyone can take over version 0.3, if it is so great. Why don't you
do it ?
I will play the game, stop working on my proposal, and vote 'yes' again.
But don't ask
Hi Dmitry,
In my mind, annotation syntax was one level lower, dealing with strings of
unknown syntax, not PHP expressions. Something like :
'*' whitespaces '@' STRING free-string-up-to-eol
This supports :
* @requires $a 0
But also :
* @statement INSERT INTO ?? VALUES (13, 'Phoenix', 'AZ',
De : Pascal Chevrel [mailto:pascal.chev...@free.fr]
Does it mean that in your mind the founders of the PHP language
(basically Rasmus/Zeev/Andy) have a veto right on any RFC just because
they are the founders, like in a company with shareholders? If out of
100 votes for a feature, 97 were
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
purposes. Support for annotations was
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful
2015-02-16 15:31 GMT+03:00 Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de:
My question is how do i evaluate this at runtime? I suppose a function is
necessary like evaluate_ast(...), but that requires passing the context.
many many open questions and as nikic points out this should probably be
On 16/02/15 14:00, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
We don't have final design yet. just idea(s) and a question - should we try
to do it for PHP7 or later or not at all.
That is awesome. I would vote for a yes and I'd like it out ASAP (I
would adapt my own annotation parser to read *also* this
On 16/02/15 13:40, Alexander Lisachenko wrote:
2015-02-16 15:31 GMT+03:00 Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de:
My question is how do i evaluate this at runtime? I suppose a function is
necessary like evaluate_ast(...), but that requires passing the context.
many many open questions and as
The implementation is not going to be simple, and taking in account other
tasks, it may be difficult to provide high-quality implementation. Lets
look if it's really a desirable feature. Then I may do all my best, or
forget about it by 7.1.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Nikita
our approach is more powerfull, and HHVM syntax is not sufficient.
Also somethig looks better than something.
anyway, syntax decorators are discussable.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Hi,
Am 16.02.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Dmitry
François Laupretre wrote on 16/02/2015 12:27:
De : Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com]
Please can we take Andrea at her word:
This isn’t a judgement of the PHP community nor the internals mailing
list, you’re all wonderful people and it’s really been a pleasure, and I
mean that
2015-02-16 15:12 GMT+03:00 Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de:
but what is the API of an AST node and how does the visitor look like?
I have a draft for that:
https://gist.github.com/lisachenko/ffcfdec4c46e01864b33 This is extended
version for php-ast extension that I want to propose for
Hi,
Am 16.02.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Dmitry Stogov:
HHVM already implemented similar concept
http://docs.hhvm.com/manual/en/hack.attributes.php
Why not borrow their syntax? Makes it easier to write stuff for both
languages.
Greets,
Dennis
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Hi Stas,
On 16 Feb 2015, at 05:20, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
Since Andrea has withdrawn the spaceship operator RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/combined-comparison-operator), I'd like to
resurrect it. Looks like by vote results (with 1 day of official vote
left) it was
Dmitry and Joe,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, if you know the destination function at compile time, you don't
need to generate generic code. you can generate a direct
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we
got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Benjamin Eberlei kont...@beberlei.de
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract
we got an idea of using annotations.
BTW: annotations are useful
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
I would very much like it to be my problem how my API is exposed to a
user. At the very least I should have as much control over an API
written in C as one written in PHP.
And you have that control. You expose
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
That syntax poll aside, I had what I hope is some sort an enlightenment, and
I think I know what will get me to cast my vote in favor of 'strict', as a
true supporter. There's one very special conversion that's too common in
In a word, yes. Have to say you're abilities to compile Zeev - formal
declaration are pretty amazing :)
Zeev
On 17 בפבר׳ 2015, at 08:20, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
That syntax poll aside, I had what I hope is
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:45 AM, François Laupretre franc...@php.net
wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
In my mind, annotation syntax was one level lower, dealing with strings of
unknown syntax, not PHP expressions. Something like :
'*' whitespaces '@' STRING free-string-up-to-eol
This supports :
*
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many people
and had major support.
Maybe someone competent could pick it up, make necessary adjustments that
where required and let people vote on it? Start with small steps - get the
weak type hints into the language first, see how
You're right. I am probably expressing my own frustration when I imagine that
withdrawing four important RFC s a few days before vote ends has little to do
with time management issues.
Let's stay politically correct and don't express anything about the atmosphere
in the community, which has
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
hi,
During discussion of different ways of implementing Design by Contract we
got an idea of using annotations.
Thanks a lot to push that forward!
BTW: annotations are useful by their own and may be used for different
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people and had major support.
People keep saying this like it's a thing, but I and others are vehemently
opposed to this as a solution. The only thing weak hints accomplishes is
the illusion of safety without actually
-Original Message-
From: rdlow...@gmail.com [mailto:rdlow...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Daniel Lowrey
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 5:13 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: I quit.
The 0.1 RFC version was mentioned a lot as a good compromise by many
people and
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: rdlow...@gmail.com [mailto:rdlow...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Daniel Lowrey
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 5:13 PM
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: I quit.
The
De : Rowan Collins [mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com]
Saying that's enough isn't even a productive comment. Enough what?
What is it you are asking to happen next?
Maybe an initiative to write an RFC about the rules we should follow when
writing to the list. People who agree could show their
Stanislav Malyshev wrote on 16/02/2015 05:14:
Hi!
Agreed. Personally, I'm a great fan of symettry, so part of me would
prefer to introduce a keyword for when you *can't* call a method
statically, e.g. instance function foo() { ... }. But I guess instance
This would be another form of saying
is there any penalty of catch-AssertionException-blocks? Are those
eliminated in production code?
Assertions should never be enabled in production code, the ability to catch
(and enable by configuration) the exception serves the developer of the
code during development only.
The example code is
Kris Craig wrote on 16/02/2015 01:40:
create the static instance
Isn't that essentially a contradiction in terms? I can't help but
feel that blurring the line between static and non-static
classes/methods would cause more harm than good.
I've never really done any work with Redis before
De : Netroby [mailto:hufeng1...@gmail.com]
We do not have Scalar type hints for years. we code in php for years
without any type check. it's ok. not the primary things.
Look at other dynamic programming language, they may not have the type
check either.
It is ok, and it is fine.
Tony Marston wrote on 16/02/2015 10:09:
This RFC only mentions errors with object methods, so what impact
would it have with procedural functions. For example, if
fopen('nonexistantfile.txt') fails the return value is FALSE and an
E_WARNING is generated, but it is difficult to trap the error
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
