On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andreas Leathley wrote:
> On 06.10.20 17:15, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > My opinion on constructor property promotion (CPP) is that it's something
> > for small value object classes and should probably be regarded as
> > code-smell on larger classes. At the same time,
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 17:20, Andreas Leathley wrote:
> From my understanding suppressing the validation errors in this
> particular case would be a good solution, or are there any serious
> downsides to that?
>
The downside presumably is that a library author could implement an
attribute with
On 06.10.20 17:15, Sara Golemon wrote:
My opinion on constructor property promotion (CPP) is that it's something
for small value object classes and should probably be regarded as
code-smell on larger classes. At the same time, annotations belong with
more complex objects and not so much with
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 5:36 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
> When the constructor property promotion landed, the question of how it
> interacts with attributes on promoted properties did not get fully
> resolved. See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constructor_promotion#attributes
> for
> what the issue is.
>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:36 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> When the constructor property promotion landed, the question of how it
> interacts with attributes on promoted properties did not get fully
> resolved. See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constructor_promotion#attributes
> for
Hi all,
as outlined in bug #77069[1], a stream filter may loose (aka. skip) the
final data block. That bug report has some duplicates: #48725, #79984
and #77080.
Several weaks ago I made PR #6001[2] which would fix this issue, but I'm
not sure whether that change would violate the assumption
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 12:20, Brent Roose wrote:
> The point of short closures, regardless of single line or multi line, is
> addressed (and agreed upon by the RFC votes) in the first pararaph of the
> RFC [1]. I'm not sure if I can add anything useful rather than saying "it's
> nice to be able
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 11:28, G. P. B. wrote:
> First, can you please bottom-post and not top-post.
>
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 09:53, Brent Roose wrote:
>
>> Hi internals
>>
>> The reason multi-line short closures are so valued by userland devs is
>> because they are shorter to write and prettier
First, can you please bottom-post and not top-post.
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 09:53, Brent Roose wrote:
> Hi internals
>
> The reason multi-line short closures are so valued by userland devs is
> because they are shorter to write and prettier to read. While some of us
> might not agree on the
Hi internals
The reason multi-line short closures are so valued by userland devs is because
they are shorter to write and prettier to read. While some of us might not
agree on the definition of "prettier to read", it was one of the key arguments
for adding short closures in the first place:
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
