Hello,
thank you for the RFC but I hope it doesn't pass. Here's my constructive
feedback as to why.
Verbosity? Are we really debating whether adding 2 extra characters is more
"verbose"? Well, with 3 or more grouped attributes, we are less verbose by 1
character. I don't find "verbosity" to be
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:55 AM Theodore Brown
wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I discussed the syntax for attributes further with Benjamin, Martin,
> and several other internals developers off-list, and with their
> feedback completed an RFC proposing to use the shorter `@@` syntax
> instead of `<<>>`
Hi internals,
I discussed the syntax for attributes further with Benjamin, Martin,
and several other internals developers off-list, and with their
feedback completed an RFC proposing to use the shorter `@@` syntax
instead of `<<>>` for attributes in PHP 8.
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 12:32, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:20 PM Gabriel Caruso
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 15:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:45 PM Gabriel Caruso <
>>> carusogabrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Hello, internals!
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:20 AM Gabriel Caruso
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 15:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:45 PM Gabriel Caruso <
>> carusogabrie...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello, internals!
>> >>
>> >> I have opened the voting for
>> >>
Hi internals,
I've opened voting on the stable sorting RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/stable_sorting
Voting closes 2020-06-17.
Regards,
Nikita
On 3 June 2020 09:50:23 BST, Deleu wrote:
> `is_numeric` has been with PHP for
>so long that I don't think we would ever be able to have a `numeric`
>type-hint that doesn't align with it, which imho means we either have it or
>we don't, a 3rd option where a possible type-hint that is inconsistent
> To clarify, what are the semantics of numeric? If you have a numeric
argument and "42" is passed in, will it be converted to int(42), or will it
remain as "42" (as is_numeric("42") returns true)?
I imagine it would remain as "42" since implicit casting is the source of
some of the problems
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:20 PM Gabriel Caruso
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 15:57, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:45 PM Gabriel Caruso
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, internals!
>>>
>>> I have opened the voting for
>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/magic-methods-signature.
>>>
>>>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM Deleu wrote:
> Hello Internals,
>
> I'd like to know what would be people's feelings towards having a `numeric`
> type. I remember reading the nullable casting RFC (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullable-casting) and it's discussion (
>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 6:57 PM David Gebler wrote:
> Exactly as the subject says, I would like to propose an RFC for adding an
> fsync() function for file resources, which would in essence be a thin
> wrapper around C's fsync on UNIX systems and _commit on Windows.
>
> It seems to me an odd
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:02 PM Côme Chilliet <
come.chill...@fusiondirectory.org> wrote:
> Le Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:46:00 +0200,
> Nikita Popov a écrit :
> > To give a tl;dr of existing discussions on the topic:
> >
> > $foobar = [2 => 2, 1 => 1, 0 => 0];
> > [$foo, ...$bar] = $foobar;
> >
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:53 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Hi internals
>
> I'd like to introduce another RFC I've been working on:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nullsafe_operator
>
> It introduces the nullsafe operator ?-> that skips null values when
> calling functions and fetching properties. In
Le Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:46:00 +0200,
Nikita Popov a écrit :
> To give a tl;dr of existing discussions on the topic:
>
> $foobar = [2 => 2, 1 => 1, 0 => 0];
> [$foo, ...$bar] = $foobar;
> // What is the result?
>
> Introducing this feature is primarily a matter of coming up with a
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:37 AM paul laffitte
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to submit an RFC proposal about array destructuring
> assignment. An RFC has already been implemented in php 7.1 about this (
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_list_syntax), but I feel like something is
> missing for
Hello,
I would like to submit an RFC proposal about array destructuring assignment. An
RFC has already been implemented in php 7.1 about this
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/short_list_syntax), but I feel like something is
missing for this one. Indeed, another RFC about "Spread Operator in Array
Hi Rowan,
Although I understand your concerns, I wouldn't consider them a roadblock
for this feature. My rationale is that `is_numeric` has been with PHP for
so long that I don't think we would ever be able to have a `numeric`
type-hint that doesn't align with it, which imho means we either have
pt., 22 maj 2020 o 08:14 Michał Brzuchalski
napisał(a):
> Hi Internals,
>
> We have just opened the vote on the PHP namespace in core RFC. The voting
> will be
> open for two weeks, until 2020-06-05 06:00 UTC.
>
Heads-up. We will end the vote soon.
If anyone may have not decided yet or would
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:57 PM Max Semenik wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 4:47 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > I'm concerned about the performance implications of this change.
> Backtrace
> > gathering is quite expensive and doing this for every diagnostic will
> have
> > a large performance
On 02/06/2020 22:52, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
It introduces the nullsafe operator ?-> that skips null values when
calling functions and fetching properties. In contrast to the last few
attempts this RFC includes full short circuiting.
I like it a lot! Concise and clear RFC.
From having used a
20 matches
Mail list logo
