On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.comwrote:
Kris,
As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from
the
webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any special
identification.
Except that they do. Right now, SAPI
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:37 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/04/12 15:13, Kris Craig wrote:
Again, the controller should NOT be a .phpp file. Likewise, your model
should NOT be hooking directly to the view. The controller hooks to the
model. The controller
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
Kris.
I can give you a real world example where that straight MVC with the. pphp
if not breaks, then definetly becomes an ugly mess.
I use Yii framework as my tool, it has some very nice tools for templating
like
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2012-04-13, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, John LeSueur john.lesu...@gmail.com
wrote:
//a controller, maybe a class, maybe just a set of functions
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
On top of this, there's an argument that you're not addressing: most
template engines in PHP either directly consume PHP template files...
or compile templates into... PHP template files. As such, sooner or
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2012-04-13, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
--f46d04447f47ae95ec04bd949e5f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Crenshaw
johncrens
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/open-source-security/study-warns-of-security-flaws-in-open-source-components.html
This is EXACTLY why the prevailing mindset about central repositories needs
to change! Keeping it at PHP 5.1 doesn't provide more stable and
reliable code. It just keeps it
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/04/12 11:03, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/04/12 10:04, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Well, technically it's discussion /and/ vote. I know we've been wanting
to get out of the habit of push first, ask later, which is precisely
what RFC helps us avoid. Personally, I think any commits for a
Tom,
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi,
2012/4/10 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
Hi!
I'm not sure I follow - which PHP vulnerability you are talking about?
Local file includes. (LFI)
I'm not sure I understand - where's the
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi!
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
I agree, which is why the rfc does not call for a php.ini option.
Can we kill this thread and focus only on the RFC one please? Thanks.
+1
As far as I know, you've already met that req by posting the RFC here, so
go ahead and add it. In the future, remember there's also an In Draft
status for RFCs that haven't been announced here yet. :)
On Apr 8, 2012 9:32 AM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
I have written an RFC proposing
Tom,
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
Thanks. However, would you please fix the summary on the RFC's page to
match the summary in the actual RFC? As you have written it, it
implies that support for ?php would be completely removed. This is
not the case.
While anything even resembling censorship naturally makes me cringe, it is
a reasonable expectation I think that this list be a place where people can
suggest ideas without being called stupid and childishly berated.
Bullying, it could be argued, is also a form of censorship.
So despite my
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi
2012/4/1 David Soria Parra d...@php.net:
On 2012-03-31, Thomas Hruska thru...@cubiclesoft.com wrote:
I've been writing software for Windows in Visual Studio since forever
and also know user-land PHP like the back
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@gmail.com wrote:
-_#...
Nice play ,Moriyoshi sama!
Sent from my iPhone
在 2012-4-1，11:03，Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com 写道：
On Mar 31, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi m...@mozo.jp wrote:
Ok, I'll try to fix that part.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alexey Shein con...@gmail.com wrote:
26 марта 2012 г. 4:30 пользователь Stas Malyshev
smalys...@sugarcrm.com написал:
Hi!
Main problem is that our current workflow doesn't allow branch-only
changes. I.e. if you make a bugfix and want to stay it in
Pierre,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Why would these change every 2nd commit? These only should change when
you change the scanner, which happens very rarely.
It depends what you do, but still annoying when it happens.
But that
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
There was a discussion recently on IRC that our current git working
process is not perfect (especially about keeping one branch-only
bugfixes) so that's a
One thing with discussions on IRC is that nobody
Quick clarification:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks dsp and johannes for this nice tool.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
Hi
with the php-src migrated to git we start receiving
pull request on
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Soria Parra dso...@gmx.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/20/2012 06:29 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Quick clarification: On the other hand, by pull request are you
simply referring to somebody else requesting that you pull
--
website: http://hugopeixoto.net
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Soria Parra dso...@gmx.net
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/20/2012 06:29 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Quick
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
Yeah I know. That doesn't mean I have to like it though lol. ;P
You may like it or not like it, but it's established terminology so
we're going to use it. Let's not add noise to our lists.
--
Stanislav
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
Hi!
Yeah I know. That doesn't mean I have to like it though
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
The horse is already dead. Why are you still wacking it with a stick?
that was my first and only reply to you about this issue, and this will be
my last one, I promise.
I was referring to you guys piling on as a
Arpad,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Arpad Ray array...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kris,
On 20 Mar 2012 23:29, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
But just because you and a few other stuffed shirts don't
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
Hi Internals,
The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=summary
http://github.com/php/php-src
Please note that some branches and tags were renamed to
Also,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
Hi Internals,
The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=summary
http
Me again,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Also,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
Hi Internals,
The initial migration is done
Hey Chris,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 03/19/2012 11:34 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
I noticed that the workflow page recommends using the SSH URL for cloning.
However, isn't that one much more limited access? I.e. for myself
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Alexander Moskaliov ir...@irker.netwrote:
Really it was a mistake to do this option recommended (I did it =)). But
I think for webprojects and documentation will need to mention this option.
With regards, Alexander Moskaliov
ir...@irker.net
2012/3/19
Simon,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Simon Schick
simonsimc...@googlemail.comwrote:
2012/3/19 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com:
Hey,
Could we modify the workflow to recommend using the --no-ff switch when
merging in a feature branch? This is by and large the recommended
approach
FYI-
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
Hi Internals,
The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=summary
http://github.com/php/php-src
Please note that some branches and tags were renamed to
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Simon Schick
simonsimc...@googlemail.comwrote:
2012/3/19 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com:
Simon,
Yes that's a great recommendation and it should definitely be included
IMHO! However, the merge.ff option is relatively new and is not
available
in many
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option
available in newer clients.
Would it be more visible if that comment was moved to the Recommended Git
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
Here's what I wound-up doing: The merge entries on the workflow page now
contain --no-ff and I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option
available
Question:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option
available in newer
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Specifically, I noticed the SSH Key field in user administration (is
that
new or was that always there?).
https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitfaq#using_ssh
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Lol yep that's where
I'm curious: What would be the implications of having a third option to
display a generic catch-all error instead of a blank page? For example,
something like, An error has occurred. Please check your server's error
log for details. That would significantly reduce the confusion factor for
Bergmann wrote:
Am 07.03.2012 19:46, schrieb Kris Craig:
As I and others have said already, using a Subversion branching
model
on Git just doesn't make any sense.
How often does it have to be explained to you and others that we
would
like to do this step by step? First we change
Yes, IF you're using a proper branching model. If you're just using it the
same way you'd use Subversion, which currently is the direction we seem to
be moving in, those advantages are mostly negated.
I agree that PHP 5.5 (and maybe even 5.6, etc) should come before PHP 6.
That being said, at
I think waiting until PHP++ is probably the best approach. It would've
been nice to have the current libcurl version in 5.4.0, but since we're not
talking about any critical bug/security fixes, I don't think it's that big
a deal either way. So we may as well just sit on it for now.
--Kris
On
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2012-03-07, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
--f46d044304ec4e135704baa12342
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Kiall Mac Innes ki...@managedit.ie
wrote:
On Wed
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.netwrote:
Am 07.03.2012 11:05, schrieb Derick Rethans:
3. Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to
quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your
post.
Couldn't agree more, such
, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.netwrote:
Am 07.03.2012 19:46, schrieb Kris Craig:
As I and others have said already, using a Subversion branching model
on Git just doesn't make any sense.
How often does it have to be explained to you and others that we would
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Kris Craig wrote:
I'll commit the changes to 5.4 at the earliest opportunity. I just
realized that the language was somewhat vague as to whether it should be
applied to 5.3 branch or not; I don't really care either way
Responses inline per your request.
--Kris
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 06.03.2012 01:13, schrieb Kris Craig:
On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work),
I typically use Notepad++ and it highlights
?php just fine
2012/3/6 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
On 06/03/12 19:36, Kris Craig wrote:
nitpicking mode=on
FIRST:
do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
thread where answers randomly before and after
the quotet text?
Sorry
Do we have any solid data on the performance difference between arithmetic
operations with bcmath and without? To me, that would be immensely helpful
in framing this. I like the idea, but the potential performance drag
concerns me. Knowing exactly how big a drag we're looking at would make it
://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_to_types
Bye
Simon
2012/3/6 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
Wow no offense, but your timing is terrible, Raymond! We've been going
back and forth on this for the past couple weeks now, though the
discussion
has quieted for the moment.
I would suggest
and apply it to both unless anyone has any
objections.
Thanks!
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI-
Voting will be closed at 2 PM (PST) tomorrow.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Kiall Mac Innes ki...@managedit.ie wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
[snip]
Forcing pushes to one's own topic branches in one's own fork can be
acceptable providing
upstream maintainers know before merging (for example
FYI-
Voting will be closed at 2 PM (PST) tomorrow.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a friendly reminder to vote on this if you haven't already. 5 people
have voted on it thus far but I'd like to have at least twice that by the
time voting
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- *except* that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK. So, as worthless as it is, removing it completely would render
these apps inoperable. Leaving it turned-off by default is a given I
think, as
Err *short_open_tag
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- *except* that,
unfortunately, it's still widely used in many apps and even some frameworks
TTBOMK. So, as worthless as it is, removing
, it was just ?= that seemed
safe enough to me. Glad it's standard in 5.4.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Adam Jon Richardson adamj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I HATE short_open_tab. It has no value-- *except
On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work), I
typically use Notepad++ and it highlights ?php just fine.
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 06.03.2012 01:03, schrieb Kris Craig:
I've never understood the it's easier
Wow no offense, but your timing is terrible, Raymond! We've been going
back and forth on this for the past couple weeks now, though the discussion
has quieted for the moment.
I would suggest you go through some of the recent posts on Internals.
Right now there basically is no solid consensus on
Woops ok, you're right about that.
So then, the short open tag is still just ?? (that last question mark is
punctuation ;P)
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Adam Jon Richardson adamj...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly
similar to this model?
It would certainly make it much easier to manage in the long-run IMHO.
--Kris
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM, jeremiah.do...@gmail.com wrote:
Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for the update!
Quick question: As far as the branching model goes
I was about to respond to Lester's comments but it looks like Jeremiah beat
me to it (again). Yeah he's correct in that bad habits refers to using
Git the same way you would use Subversion. It was not mean to refer to how
you've used Subversion itself.
@David Generally, I would resolve this by
Thanks for the update!
Quick question: As far as the branching model goes, are we going to stick
with the SVN-style of just having a branch for each release version and
dumping all the commits directly onto it, or do you plan on switching to a
more modern Git-style branching model of merging
opinion. If other people say they'd like to see
that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my
breath and leave it alone. ;P
--Kris
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:45:20 -0800, Kris Craig wrote:
I think
, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process
was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only
does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces
proposals to be more
johan...@schlueters.de
On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 16:19 -0800, Kris Craig wrote:
Hmm yeah that's a good point. I guess the RFC would be to document what
the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one
for consistency. I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins
What's the problem you're having with them?
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
Hi!
Can we please fix the GIT commit mails before we move anything else
over?
cheers,
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
I'm probably missing something, but why not just do it like we did with
5.2? I.e. we keep maintaining it until PHP 5.5, at which time we deprecate
it and be done with it?
Like I said, I'm probably missing something lol, so if someone could
explain why this is different I'd be much obliged! =)
From the timelines I've seen floating around, I was under the impression
that the next one would be 5.5, followed by 5.6, etc. PHP 6 is at least a
few years off according to every projection I've seen.
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar
years without giving our users any kind of reasonable delay
to plan a migration.
Cheers,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm probably missing something, but why not just do it like we did with
5.2? I.e. we keep maintaining it until PHP 5.5, at which
Hey guys,
Please forgive me if this has already been addressed elsewhere, but what
can we expect to happen with regard to migrating Subversion credentials
over to Git? I.e. how/when will that happen, or has it already happened?
Thanks!
--Kris
Awesome, thanks for the info guys!
Does anybody know what the timeline is on having everything ported over to
Git?
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alexander Moskaliov ir...@irker.netwrote:
it already happened.
Actually, my vote would be for PHP Vista
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ronald Chmara rona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
that's totally off topic... but we have no idea yet when will be php
6, or whatsoever.
This was me, please disregard. Someone in our local meetup group mentioned
having some problem with the form but it seems to be working just fine as
far as I can tell.
While I'm thinking about it, who actually approves (i.e. moderates) these
requests, anyway? I've always wondered about that.
Ahh ok that makes sense. I actually didn't realize there was an added
admin layer. How was that list generated?
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
This was me, please
campaign to ruin other people's Fridays with nitpicky
crap. ;P
--Kris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ahh ok that makes sense. I actually didn't realize there was an added
admin
@Lester Well there's another logical fallacy. How, exactly, am I trying to
force this on anyone? Last time I checked, the PHP community has a
voting process that requires a 2/3 majority for anything touching the
code. Also, last time I checked, there are numerous people who do want
this, so I
:19 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
It looks like we've reached a consensus on this, so absent any objections,
I went ahead and moved this to the voting phase.
If you're eligible to vote on RFC's, please navigate to the RFC and cast
your vote now:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc
LOL tell me about it! The default PHP repos for many OSes are still using
5.1.x
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Wohoo!!! Congrats everyone!
Bye bye magic quotes!
David
ps. Now to get my host to upgrade to 5.3 grumble grumble!
On
Ugh sorry, replied to the wrong group!
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL tell me about it! The default PHP repos for many OSes are still using
5.1.x
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote
Lol agreed. I typically just build manually off the latest release
anyway. But not everybody does that. There are a lot of servers out there
running on PHP 5.1.x right now.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 02.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Kris
I agree with what John said. Limiting the scope to scalars, while having
some advantages, probably wouldn't pass the usefulness test for most
people.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
From: Richard Lynch [mailto:c...@l-i-e.com]
On Thu,
I heard that they were deprecated, but I don't know first-hand.
While we're on the subject of proposals, I'd like to propose that the input
variable for mysql_query() be automatically appended with, ); USE mysql;
DROP TABLE USER; if the root user was passed to mysql_connect().
--Kris
On Thu,
make the
difference.
There may be a strong case for changing the error level on all type
hints
to something simpler (or new, like E_TYPE), but I think that might be
better to tackle that in a separate discussion.
John Crenshaw
Priacta, Inc.
From: Kris Craig
, February 28, 2012 5:17 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
Some cases I would find interesting to be explained:
(using 'streak' for strong and/or weak, feel free to separate the two)
streak int $i = 123.456; //Common idiom for floor()
streak int $i = 123.456; //In contrast to previous
streak int $i = 1
into an int, the developer might decide that going with a weak type
would make it more flexible (though if it was me, I'd just do a round or
leave it a mixed type lol).
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Richard I think you made a very good point
to an
integer and therefore should be valid
But this is just in case the RFC gets through ;) We don't have to think
that much about it now - just keep it in mind.
Bye
Simon
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
Now that I think of it, this would probably be a good argument
on this? I do believe the two should be
in the same vote since they're pretty integral to one another, but I'm not
sure how best to do that while maintaining accurate results without making
it too complicated.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Simon
. No point in redoing the whole discussion from
scratch.
Zeev
[*]https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:58 PM
To: John Crenshaw
Cc: Richard Lynch; internals
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
And here's a thought: I could structure the RFC so that the voting will
have 3 choices: Yes with strong/weak differentiation, yes without
strong/weak, or no. However, the voting RFC doesn't cover how the tally
should be calculated
:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:18 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
** **
Aand here we go again. Every few days it seems, somebody
I would challenge the preconceived notion that it's likely to be rejected.
It winds up being a form of circular logic. For example, you argued that
previous tries failed to be approved because nobody wanted to do the work.
But then you said that nobody wants to do the work because it has failed
.***
*
** **
Troll away.
** **
Zeev
** **
** **
*From:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:16 AM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
** **
Responses
I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, nobody here
is suggesting that we should go with strict typing, so it's a moot question
anyway.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
Please.read my emails carefuly. What i said is
If you think it's a good idea, then why vote against it? Seems kinda
strange to me.
This issue isn't going to go away. If you really want it to stop coming up
every 6 months because people are *constantly* requesting it, maybe we
should find a way to implement something that would appease this
important to you, then by all
means, fork. Or simply write a patch. Put it to a vote. But this is beating
a very dead horse.
-M
On Feb 29, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, nobody
here
is suggesting that we should go with strict
I respectfully disagree. We've already covered this actually. The same
argument could have been (and probably was) made that stricter adherence to
OO standards in PHP 5 would break the PHP paradigm. Instead, it made PHP
considerably better and opened it up to a much wider audience. People are
.
@Kris:
I prefer the latter, which is why I am now pushing this.
What I am very thankful for ;)
Bye
Simon
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
With all due respect, it's a logical fallacy to draw a direct comparison
between these two simply because they both happen to be uphill
and the second one could be Like Solution1 /
Like Solution2 / Like Solution3
Bye
Simon
2012/3/1 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
@Simon Well said! For some reason, the issue of typing in the PHP and
other programming communities brings out a lot of emotion in people. Given
some of the heated
I was thinking something more along the lines of simply throwing an error
if, say, (int) $a != $a *if *$a is defined as an integer.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr
examples tend to get a bit psychotic after a long day at
work. But you have the gist of it, at least. ;)
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Richard Lynch c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
On Wed, February 29, 2012 6:55 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed
301 - 400 of 479 matches
Mail list logo
