Re: [PHP-DEV] reused hash tables in large data structures in PHP7

Hey: On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Adam Baratz wrote: > Hi, > > I've encountered a hard-to-consistently-reproduce issue with HashTable > zvals. I have code that will generate big nested \stdClass structures for > JSON encoding. It does so using classes that have

[PHP-DEV] reused hash tables in large data structures in PHP7

Hi, I've encountered a hard-to-consistently-reproduce issue with HashTable zvals. I have code that will generate big nested \stdClass structures for JSON encoding. It does so using classes that have methods that generate those fields. For example, you could have a class like this: class Block {

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Closure from callable

On 16 May 2016 at 09:31, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > I'm sorry, I didn't follow the RFC discussion. > In general I like the idea, but why not to use Closure constructor? > Hi Dmitry, Several small to medium sized reasons that make me think it's the best way. As Marco said,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 5/16/2016 3:05 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > I'm sorry, but I think that the idea of meta-data that can't error > somehow, somewhere, at some point, is completely unrealistic. > > And I'd much rather have a simple facility that enables those errors > to surface quickly. > It should error and

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:17 AM, François Laupretre wrote: > Le 16/05/2016 à 03:33, Larry Garfield a écrit : >> This still sounds awfully complicated to me. I would far, far prefer >> the $$ syntax to special casing function aliases just to dance around >> it. If we had a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 16/05/2016 14:05, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > I'm afraid I don't follow. Why is it a problem to simply add a > function or class to the global namespace? > > << new Memoize() >> > > or maybe a class with factory functions for built-in annotations: > > << Meta::memoize() >> Well, those particular

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Forbid dynamic calls to scope introspection functions

> > The RFC > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/forbid_dynamic_scope_introspection > > is now in voting. The vote closes on 2016-05-24 with a required majority of > 2/3. I voted no. While I agree these appear to be exotic use cases, my quibble boils down to the assumption these minimally exist in

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

Rowan, I'm afraid I don't follow. Why is it a problem to simply add a function or class to the global namespace? << new Memoize() >> or maybe a class with factory functions for built-in annotations: << Meta::memoize() >> I tend to agree with Richard though, that system directives really ought

[PHP-DEV] NEUTRAL Benchmark Results for PHP Master 2016-05-16

Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-05-16 06:29:31+03:00 commit: bc63879 previous commit:ccf18da revision date: 2016-05-15 14:15:04+01:00 environment:Haswell-EP cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping 2, LLC 45 MB

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 5/13/2016 2:57 PM, Davey Shafik wrote: > 2) I like the idea of Hacks memoize for example, how do you see those being > implemented? Or don't you? > I wrote it in the /attribute grammar/ thread and I write it here again. Stuff like memoize should be implemented as keywords as part of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 5/13/2016 2:11 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Dear Internals, > > I'm announcing a simplified RFC for annotations: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/simple-annotations > -1 again, I am sorry. The problem is that an annotation by definition is just meta-data. Your proposal however might result in

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Pipe Operator

Le 16/05/2016 à 03:33, Larry Garfield a écrit : This still sounds awfully complicated to me. I would far, far prefer the $$ syntax to special casing function aliases just to dance around it. If we had a short-function syntax then requiring a piped function to have only a single argument would

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Simple Annotations

On 14/05/2016 20:49, Rasmus Schultz wrote: Dan, I've added a note about special annotations to the "future scope" section, naming the memoization-annotation as an example. This doesn't really explain how such a feature would fit it into the proposal. For instance, how can we avoid the syntax

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Closure from callable

On Mon, 16 May 2016 03:56:38 +0300, Sara Golemon wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Nikita Nefedov wrote: why would you need to support a $this->fieldName case though? Because to not support it would be to deliberately design in a new flavor of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Closure from callable

On 16 May 2016 at 10:31, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > I'm sorry, I didn't follow the RFC discussion. > In general I like the idea, but why not to use Closure constructor? > > $f = new Closure("some_func"); > > would look more readable than > > $f = Closure::fromCallable("some_func");

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Closure from callable

I'm sorry, I didn't follow the RFC discussion. In general I like the idea, but why not to use Closure constructor? $f = new Closure("some_func"); would look more readable than $f = Closure::fromCallable("some_func"); Sorry, if this was already discussed before. Thanks. Dmitry.