Hi!
> The RFC that proposes adding retry functionality to the
> `try/catch/finally` block is now officially "under discussion".
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/retry-keyword
To me, it looks like this belongs in userspace, not as a language
keyword. I don't really see what it does that you can't do
On 15/6/17 10:34 pm, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Do, 2017-06-15 at 11:06 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Remi Collet
wrote:
Hi,
All extensions in php-src are PHP 3.01 Licensed
(libs may, of course, have different license)
Is there any strong rule about this ?
O
Results for project PHP master, build date 2017-06-18 19:23:26-07:00
commit: e0403eb
previous commit:bfa1544
revision date: 2017-06-18 20:24:19-04:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
Hi!
I've discovered something weird in 7.0 branch. There are two commits of
a bugfix -
https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/d1d002fc4dd25a80e20163b18880f40a445276e7
and
https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/8c44d07fd485a8e8d62bc6e4fe14bec5493ebc58
- which I made, which are present in 7.1 and mast
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:09 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
> RFC was appoved (17 to 4). Thanks to all who took the time to discuss and
> vote about this.
>
> I just rebased the PR to the current master. Could someone with appropriate
> rights merge it ? Thanks.
>
I was about to merge this, but ran
Hi all,
It might be useful to incorporate the "retry if" condition that'll likely
arise in use of this, into the feature itself. Such that after the retry
keyword you could optionally specify a truthy value.
Then you could write something like
$retries = 5;
try {
// …
} ca
So what's on the table is a syntax-improved but feature-crippled variant of
closures, not an all-round replacement?
If I have to factor back and forth between new and old syntax every time a
closure changes from one to multiple or back to one statement, then,
frankly, what's the point?
I think I
On 06/19/2017 03:45 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
Or maybe it'll look okay if you format the code?
$things->forEach({$v => {
foo($v);
bar($v);
}});
Still looks kinda crazy with the closing "}})" though...
Multi-line lambdas should use the existing syntax without chan
Or maybe it'll look okay if you format the code?
$things->forEach({$v => {
foo($v);
bar($v);
}});
Still looks kinda crazy with the closing "}})" though...
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> I actually like this syntax, but what would it look like
I actually like this syntax, but what would it look like for
multi-statement closures?
A nested set of curly braces around the body would look pretty messy.
$things->forEach({$v => { foo($v); bar($v); }});
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 1:4
Hi,
No problem, I just had changed the status of two RFCs. It's OK now. I
just said people should check their changes because one of my changes
was to move an RFC from 'in discussion' to 'accepted for 7.2' and, after
Kalle restored the page, the RFC was in 'Pending implementation', where
it n
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
> I don't know which version you restored, and clicking on the glasses to
> display differences between versions does not display anything, but I lost
> the changes I did before the page was overwritten. I will do it again but,
> IMO, anyb
I don't know which version you restored, and clicking on the glasses to
display differences between versions does not display anything, but I
lost the changes I did before the page was overwritten. I will do it
again but, IMO, anybody having changed something on the main RFC page
recently shoul
Hi
2017-06-19 20:05 GMT+02:00 François Laupretre :
> Hi,
>
> It seems you just overwrote the RFC main page (https://wiki.php.net/rfc)
> with your 'retry' RFC (with the 'remove words "visual debt"' change).
>
> I tried to follow instructions to revert to the previous revision (select
> revision and
Hi,
Opening vote for : https://wiki.php.net/rfc/url-opcode-cache
Voting period will end Monday, July 3, 2017, 00:00 UTC.
Regards
François
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
It seems you just overwrote the RFC main page (https://wiki.php.net/rfc)
with your 'retry' RFC (with the 'remove words "visual debt"' change).
I tried to follow instructions to revert to the previous revision
(select revision and click 'Edit this page') but it does not seem to
work (the
Hi,
RFC was appoved (17 to 4). Thanks to all who took the time to discuss
and vote about this.
I just rebased the PR to the current master. Could someone with
appropriate rights merge it ? Thanks.
Regards
François
Le 01/06/2017 à 17:18, François Laupretre a écrit :
Sorry, forgot [VOTE] i
Hey Sammy,
>From a language design perspective, this is syntactic sugar that brings a
lot of cost for anyone working on optimisations.
In most scenarios that I worked on, the retry functionality should always
be written as following:
try {
$externalCollaborator->doSomething($with, $a, $lot,
Hi Sammy,
On 19 June 2017 at 14:55, Sammy Kaye Powers wrote:
> Hello internals!
Please could you add to the RFC a description of what a 'break' in a
retry block actually does? Although there is an example for it, and so
people can guess what it does, having it described clearly would be
better.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.
>
> What do you think of the Ruby/Rust style syntax that Levi proposed a while
> back?
>
> $someDict
> ->map(|$v| $v * 2)
> ->filter(|$v| $v % 3);
>
> This one has a few advantages:
>
> 1. It has syntax
>
> Hello internals!
>
> The RFC that proposes adding retry functionality to the
> `try/catch/finally` block is now officially "under discussion".
>
This feature seems like something that would be extremely useful. However,
the proposed syntax for the number of retries for a block level seems to
Am 19.06.2017 um 16:24 schrieb Ivan Enderlin:
Thank you for the RFC. I have a question though. I would like to know
how is it different from the `goto` language construction?
If I understand it correctly, both the following examples are identical:
try {
// …
} catch (…) {
Hello :-),
Thank you for the RFC. I have a question though. I would like to know
how is it different from the `goto` language construction?
If I understand it correctly, both the following examples are identical:
try {
// …
} catch (…) {
retry;
}
and:
try {
Hello internals!
The RFC that proposes adding retry functionality to the
`try/catch/finally` block is now officially "under discussion".
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/retry-keyword
Voting will open on Monday, July 3rd, 2017 @ 9 am CDT.
Voting will close on Monday, July 17th, 2017 @ 9 am CDT.
Discus
can someone take a look at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=73888
real_path_cache as it is implemented now is pretty worthless when each
worker maintains it's own cache and clearstatcache() can not work at all
with that design because the worker which calls clearstatcache() doe sit
for it's own
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I started voting on the Doxygen RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/doxygen
>
>
I just wanted to send my feedback and the reason why I voted "yes". First
of all I don't really like adding too much documentation to the code (I'm
actually
26 matches
Mail list logo
