Hi Yasuo,
> > Thanks for the ping. IMHO this is the stuff for 7.1. I actually saw the
> discussions previously, but was rather thinking you was targeting 7.1 as that
> was
> already the time of the feature freeze.
>
> No problem. I'll update so that 0 mode is for 7.1.
> JSON's is better to use l
On 26/09/2015 19:37, Levi Morrison wrote:
Thank you for the feedback. I feel like the rest of what you proposed
was a bit too far outside of the box. For what it is worth no token
after the paren is necessary – you could do `fn($x) $x * 2` (or
`function($x) $x * 2`). I think this is a case where
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
>> On 26/09/2015 17:17, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>>
>>> What concerns do you have about `fn($x) => $x * 2` or `function($x) =>
>>> $x * 2`? I will be writing a proper RFC later but I wa
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 26/09/2015 17:17, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>
>> What concerns do you have about `fn($x) => $x * 2` or `function($x) =>
>> $x * 2`? I will be writing a proper RFC later but I wanted to get
>> discussion going now.
>
>
> If a keyword is requir
On 26/09/2015 17:17, Levi Morrison wrote:
What concerns do you have about `fn($x) => $x * 2` or `function($x) =>
$x * 2`? I will be writing a proper RFC later but I wanted to get
discussion going now.
If a keyword is required next to the parameters, having the => as a
separate token looks a bi
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> (Email in gist format:
> https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/fa7984c04ff176b5a87c)
>
> In EcmaScript 2015 (ES6) the expression `(x) => x * 2` means to create
> an anonymous function with one parameter `x` that will return `x * 2`.
> For exa
(Email in gist format:
https://gist.github.com/morrisonlevi/fa7984c04ff176b5a87c)
In EcmaScript 2015 (ES6) the expression `(x) => x * 2` means to create
an anonymous function with one parameter `x` that will return `x * 2`.
For example:
(x) => x * 2
// is equivalent to:
function(x) {
Hi,
I would like to write up my suggestion of hasitem() and
variable_exists() as a formal RFC.
I have registered on the wiki with username "imsop", please could I have
appropriate karma to draft the RFC.
Cheers,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
An alternative that rfc might be to add a modifier to ctor, something like.
required public function __construct();
A required function cannot be final, because the intention is to allow it
to be overridden, but it must be called by the child impl at some point.
What do u think?
On 26 Sep 2015 8:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about
>> RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote
>> again with targeting PHP 7.1?
>
> Yes, but see:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting
Hi!
> Since there is no reason not to call parent ctor, maybe PHP should
> somehow make every class have default empty ctor, if it doesn't have
> one defined already - so you can write automatically
> parent::__construct() everywhere?
I completely agree with you, that's why I submitted
https://wi
Hi!
> since the RFC doesn't look like it will pass, I have a question about
> RFC process - will you be able to "fix" the RFC and submit it for vote
> again with targeting PHP 7.1?
Yes, but see:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#resurrecting_rejected_proposals
So, to make another try, the RFC need
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'm thinking primarily of the benefit to base or abstract classes. For
>
> Both can have constructors.
>
>> base classes which expect certain properties be set, they are exposed to
>> the danger of remaining unset if the deriv
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback in the discussion thread!
>
> So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
> I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable use.
> Though a few people complained, I'm not swit
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Bob Weinand wrote:
>
>> So, before I start the vote, just two quick notes:
>> I've added two notes about the statement syntax and the single variable
>> use.
>> Though a few people complained, I'm no
15 matches
Mail list logo
