On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 06:44, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
The voting period for the Even More type hints reservation RFC is now open.
There's been a little bit of traffic on the list in the past few days;
I don't
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
Congratulations. Even though I
Hi!
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
Thank you.
Despite my previous disagreement with this RFC, I'd like to thank
Anthony for all his work on it and
Thank you Andrea and Anthony. Your efforts are much appreciated!
- Jon
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
All,
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of
Hi Pierre,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I very much appreciate your consistent effort to improve php, at all
levels.
However I won't comment on this RFC or any further RFCs trying to target
7.
My reasoning is that we should now focus on getting
On Mar 17, 2015 9:42 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Pierre,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I very much appreciate your consistent effort to improve php, at all
levels.
However I won't comment on this RFC or any further RFCs trying to
On 16 March 2015 at 06:44, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
The voting period for the Even More type hints reservation RFC is now open.
Hi Sara,
There's been a little bit of traffic on the list in the past few days;
I don't think your RFC has received enough cogent discussion.
In
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Mike Willbanks pen...@gmail.com wrote:
Let see how it looks if strict_types is renamed to raise_type_error
?php
declare(raise_type_error = 1);
function foo(int $a) {
// no function call here
}
?
The declare here
Hi Peter:
Sorry to reply late, because the GFW, I can’t access *.google.com at home.
On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net
(mailto:larue...@php.net) wrote:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
I think this is important, but not many people realize the importance.
Therefore I created this as a new thread at the last minutes of vote.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
I think this is important, but not many people realize the importance.
Therefore I created this as a new thread at the last minutes of vote.
...
strict_mode is just controlling errors, then it should be named as
Le 16/03/2015 12:39, Xinchen Hui a écrit :
Hey:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
Hi Xinchen,
You can also not vote at all, that's a very valid option.
By voting yes, you say that you want PHP developers to have access to
STH in
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Pascal Chevrel pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
Le 16/03/2015 12:39, Xinchen Hui a écrit :
Hey:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
Hi Xinchen,
You can also not vote at all, that's a very valid
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
All,
After much thinking, and despite grave concerns I raised about what
transpired in the last 24 hours, I decided to get behind the Dual Mode RFC
at this time.
I call upon everyone - both people that haven’t yet
Maintaining the documentation
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Matteo,
On 16.03.15 12:43, Matteo Beccati wrote:
On 15/03/2015 19:30, Matteo Beccati wrote:
In PHP4 times it was in fact quite common to change inherited method
signatures to bend them to one's will and/or remove parameters and
hardcode them in the parent constructor call. We now know it
On 16/03/2015 13:28, Markus Fischer wrote:
am I correct assuming that your existing test suite was running with
E_STRICT excluded from error_reporting ?
Of course.
Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati
Development Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
On 16/03/15 11:54, David Muir wrote:
On 14 Mar 2015, at 6:41 am, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
On 13/03/15 18:53, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
By considering PHP's nature, having a dual mode is a WTF. I can see
myself
asking multiple times a day is this file strict or
On 16 Mar 2015, at 11:16 pm, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how
On 3/15/15 11:05 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Eli e...@eliw.com wrote:
Currently, I can speak for myself, I almost always find myself doing a
'backup' step in coding. Because in this situation my process becomes:
if ($zebra ... Oh wait, can't do that,
On 3/16/15 2:21 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
if ($zebra in $zoo) {}
Two things here:
1. If you're looking whether your zoo has a zebra, and you're doing it
by inspecting every inch of your zoo and checking if it doesn't contain
a zebra by any chance, you're running your zoo wrong. I hope
On 15.03.2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
kk - no
That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
K
--
Kristian Köhntopp http://google.com/+KristianKohntopp
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On 15 March 2015 at 15:23, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Netroby,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Netroby hufeng1...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the in support this kind of php code ?
```php
?php
$arr = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
for ($v in $arr) {
echo $v;
}
On 16.03.2015, at 15:03, Kristian Köhntopp k...@koehntopp.de wrote:
That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
And because some people asked, the kk account is not new.
I have been using PHP since about 1997/98, joining the community around the
times of the first PHP 3.0
Hey David,
A library written in weak or strict mode will have no bearing on its public
API.
Strictly speaking (pun intended), this is not true. A library can easily expose
a
facade that enforces a user of that library (who is in weak mode) to have to
write
in strict mode [1]. Once more, this
On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai zxcvda...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
preg_replace_callback_array() in PHP is up for discussion:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/preg_replace_callback_array
This proposes adding one function:
Hi Pierre,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 6:46 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar
This RFC will have serious consequence. We made mistake with
safe_mode. The main reason it failed is it did not force caller to
have responsibility to make it work as it should. This RFC does the
same for how declare(strict_types=1) works.
Aren't we learned from safe_mode lessons?
I am
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also changes how your code
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita steli...@php.net wrote:
So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to ignore
community as a
whole, stick to their own views and implement something nobody actually
wants
Few people already told - they like this.
Thanks.
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
that means, I need
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
that means, I need to add a lots
On 14 Mar 2015, at 6:41 am, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
On 13/03/15 18:53, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
By considering PHP's nature, having a dual mode is a WTF. I can see myself
asking multiple times a day is this file strict or not? to trace
potential bugs or type
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how code behaves was a good idea?
The problem is that there are two irreconcilable camps - some people
want weak STHs, other people want strict STHs.
This
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net
On 16/03/15 09:14, Nikita Nefedov wrote:
There are composer [1] and pickle [2].
Please refrain from your over-frequent comments in this mailing list
before doing research on the subject, you tend to create an
informational noise when you do this.
So it is now official PHP policy that we
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 6:46 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also changes how your code behave, but it's
global so that can be problematic.
Hi,
working on bug 68486 I had a look at the apache2handler virtual() function.
This function, as vaguely documented, is intended to make an Apache
subrequest, without terminating the currently running request, i.e. run
whatever is behind a different URI (given as an argument to virtual().
We all have established ways of working, and my own is based on SUSE as
the core OS having switched around a little over the last few years and
simply ended up back with what is simply 'comfortable'. I can control
the remote servers without a problem and keep them up to date security
wise via the
On 16 March 2015 at 09:05, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
I don't like strict_types at all..
And you would never be forced to use them.
But you're voting against allowing anyone else to use them. :-(
cheers
Dan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM,
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:00 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
To be frank, I don't think I don't like this is a terribly good reason
to vote against (or for something). What is important is how
On 16 March 2015 at 02:31, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no need to update the BC break section. The only minor change was
the addition of the following section:
Yeah, really strong -1 on this one, even after the modification.
Now that the RFC only covers static
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
When I talked about the Dual Mode with some friends who are userland
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:50:16 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
I already showed real world example how this could be fail.
If we need this kind of behavior. I would suggest to have type affinity
like SQLite for
$_GET/$_POST/$_COOKIE.
https://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html
This
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
This RFC will have serious consequence. We made mistake with
safe_mode. The main reason it failed is it did not force caller
to have responsibility to make it work as it should. This RFC does
the same for how declare(strict_types=1) works.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Nikita Nefedov inefe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:00 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
To be frank, I don't think I don't like this is a
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
that's why I want vote no for this, and wait for Bob's Basic STH.
That will not be in PHP 7.0 though, as the deadline passed.
And I can probably bet on that
On Monday 16 March 2015 10:31:46 Patrick Schaaf wrote:
Furthermore, I have a working prototype of changing the behaviour of
virtual() in the following way: _remember_ which subrequest should be made,
but then only really make it when the current request ends (php_handler()
in the
Hi Nikic,
On 15/03/2015 19:30, Matteo Beccati wrote:
In PHP4 times it was in fact quite common to change inherited method
signatures to bend them to one's will and/or remove parameters and
hardcode them in the parent constructor call. We now know it is bad
practice, but I bet there's lot of
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how code behaves was a good idea?
The problem is that there are two
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai zxcvda...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
preg_replace_callback_array() in PHP is up for discussion:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai zxcvda...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I know it's late for the RFC party, but it looks like some form of STH
is going to land in PHP7. Without reflection support, which is also
missing from return types as far as I know.
That's why I'm resuming this thread, as I still think this is the best
approach. Many do not
Hi,
I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are
having a voting with 2 yes votes vs 16 no votes.
I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC
for the following reasons:
1. The sooner we end the voting period the better for the PHP time
On 16.03.2015 01:08, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue
writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who
Zitat von Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com:
Hi,
As promised, the Strict Argument Count RFC vote was restarted:
RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_argcount
PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1108
There was no need to update the BC break section. The only minor change was
the
Thank you Zeev.
On 16 March 2015 at 14:35, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Unecessary for everybody, one or two change from no to yes will make it pass.
:)
Although not necessary, it would reduce the level of drama, which
would be a good thing.
cheers
Dan
--
PHP Internals - PHP
On 16.03.2015, at 15:45, Theodore Brown theodor...@outlook.com wrote:
This is a bug in the library. It declares strict mode but passes a value it
does not know to be an integer to a method requiring an integer. It can
be fixed by simply adding an int type declaration to the constructor or
Hey,
This is a bug in the library. It declares strict mode but passes a value it
does not know to be an integer to a method requiring an integer. It can
be fixed by simply adding an int type declaration to the constructor or
test method.
The second example is certainly a programmer error,
On Monday March 16 at 9:33 am Thomas Punt wrote:
Strictly speaking (pun intended), this is not true. A library can easily
expose a
facade that enforces a user of that library (who is in weak mode) to have to
write
in strict mode [1]. Once more, this can be done unintentionally [2] because
On 16/03/2015 14:45, Theodore Brown wrote:
On Monday March 16 at 9:33 am Thomas Punt wrote:
Strictly speaking (pun intended), this is not true. A library can easily expose
a
facade that enforces a user of that library (who is in weak mode) to have to
write
in strict mode [1]. Once more, this
On 16 March 2015 at 14:59, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 01:40, Wei Dai zxcvda...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and
All,
After much thinking, and despite grave concerns I raised about what
transpired in the last 24 hours, I decided to get behind the Dual Mode RFC
at this time.
I call upon everyone - both people that haven’t yet voted and those who
voted no - to do the same so that we ensure that we have
On 16 March 2015 at 04:58, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
Dear Internals,
I am tentatively opening the vote on this RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7
It's a bit tentative because I would prefer to wait until the vote on
Anthony's RFC closes tomorrow as there is
While you can easily question the value or motives of Anthony's post
about voting irregularities, some simple improvements can be made
which are uncontroversial. I consider this a low hanging fruit, like
restricting the sale of firearms to people who are clearly drunk.
I mentioned on that other
Hi all,
Am 16.03.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Philip Sturgeon:
I mentioned on that other thread that the FIG has a rule saying you
cannot cast a vote in any vote that was initiated before your
membership was activated.
Let's just shove that rule in the wiki and call it done.
when we are fixing the
Hi Matthew and all,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Matthew Leverton lever...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
I think this is important, but not many people realize the importance.
Therefore I created this as a new thread
All,
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
Thank you.
Anthony
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Mar 17, 2015 7:05 AM, Peter Petermann ppeterman...@gmail.com wrote:
On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel
pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
It's too late, Bob's Basic STH missed the schedule for PHP 7, it was
proposed way too late and the coercive STH RFC has just zero
On Mar 16, 2015 11:16 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for anyone who voted, but personally, if I could vote, I
would voted no - not because I don't want to block people from
getting what they want, but because I sincerely think that having ANY
setting that changes
No, your example would blow up regardless of the caller being in strict mode
or weak mode.
That was the point in my hypothetical example - the library can decide
what mode it wants the user to use (strict or weak) if it wants to.
-Tom
--
PHP Internals -
On 3/16/15 4:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
Thank you.
Anthony
Huzzah! Huge props to everyone that made this
Hi all,
I had this idea for a long time, but I didn't have time to mention.
Since I did mention this idea in basic type hints thread, I've
created RFC for it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/introduce-type-affinity
SQLite2 was typeless. All data is stored as text.
Type affinity is SQLite3's idea to
Hi Thomas,
On 16 March 2015 at 20:51, Thomas Punt tp...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
No, your example would blow up regardless of the caller being in strict mode
or weak mode.
That was the point in my hypothetical example - the library can decide
what mode it wants the user to use (strict or weak)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 11:16 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for anyone who voted, but personally, if I could vote, I
would voted no - not because I don't want to block people from
getting what they
On Mar 16, 2015 11:07 PM, Jordi Boggiano j.boggi...@seld.be wrote:
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also
Hi Yasuo,
On Mar 17, 2015 9:01 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
I had this idea for a long time, but I didn't have time to mention.
Since I did mention this idea in basic type hints thread, I've
created RFC for it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/introduce-type-affinity
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations v0.5 RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/scalar_type_hints_v5
At a final score of 108:48, it has been accepted for PHP 7.
Thank you.
Anthony
--
PHP
Congratulations Anthony, and to Andrea for her initial proposal.
Finally, we have scalar type hints in PHP.
PHP 7 is going to be a real game changer!
Chris
On 16 Mar 2015, at 9:03 pm, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Voting has been closed on the scalar type declarations
Congratulations Antony, Andrea and (yes) Zeev!
Thanks to everyone involved, this is a great step forwards and a perfect wrap
for PHP 7.0 RFC proposal freeze :)
André
On Mar 16, 2015, at 23:05 , Chris Harvey ch...@chrisnharvey.com wrote:
Congratulations Anthony, and to Andrea for her
Hi!
But I'd like to know from your POV: Does this harm anything?
Depends on what you see as harm. Complicating the language is kind of
harm. Introducing stuff that promotes patterns that are not always best,
and that do a bit too much, and look too much like something in
different languages
Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Leverton lever...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
That is why I don't see it before (thousand times, too long to read...
but not in RFC)
It's in the RFC: Whether or not the function
Hi!
One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
That makes a lot of sense, though I don't think we had much of this
issue.
Am 15.03.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
Over in Room 11, Michael just pointed out that this could be related
to php_stdint.h.
Okay, this does not seem to be related to the GCC version but rather
to the fact that some int types etc. are not defined on/for my platform.
If I use
The voting period for the Even More type hints reservation RFC is now open.
Reminder, any types reserved via this RFC are dependent on at least
one of the STH RFCs passing, or Levi's base types reservation RFCs
passing as it's silly without at least one of those.
Hi Yasuo,
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Caller _must_ satisfy callee requirements. This is simple principle to
write a secure code.
With this RFC, caller overrides security related setting. This means
scripts
that are prepared for type safety is ignored and it leads security
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Wei Dai zxcvda...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
The RFC to add a user-land function for an easy-to-use and reliable
preg_replace_callback_array() in PHP is up for discussion:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/preg_replace_callback_array
This proposes adding
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
That is why I don't see it before (thousand times, too long to read...
but not in RFC)
It's in the RFC: Whether or not the function being called was
declared in a file that uses strict or weak type checking is
irrelevant. The
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
Over in Room 11, Michael just pointed out that this could be related
to php_stdint.h.
Okay, this does not seem to be related to the GCC version but rather
2015.03.16. 4:18 ezt írta (Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com):
One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
I'm not saying
Le 09/03/2015 17:50, Daniel Lowrey a écrit :
I'd like to announce voting for the Generator Return Expressions RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generator-return-expressions#vote
Hi,
After discussing this RFC with other people at AFUP, it seems we (even
if not many of us did express themselves
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:41 schrieb Xinchen Hui:
what is the link problems?
http://pastebin.com/Tk1kaipQ
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Caller _must_ satisfy callee requirements. This is simple principle to
write a secure code.
With this RFC, caller overrides security related setting. This
On Mon, March 16, 2015 18:17, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
If I see the results properly, it makes bout 5% improvement. Right?
Definitly makes sense to commit.
Let me know when you finish testing, or like me to commif this as is.
I've just pushed your patch along with some tests I did to ensure
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
