Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change

Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:57 PM Theodore Brown > wrote: > > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > From the perspective of looks alone I don't care much one way or the > > other between @@ and #[]. However, I don't find the arguments for #[] > > in this RFC very compelling, and it ignores some of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Proposal] Renamed parameters

Hi > > Hi all, > > The named parameters RFC has been accepted, despite significant objections > from maintainers of larger OSS projects due to the overhead it adds to > maintaining backwards compatibility as it has now made method/function > parameter names part of the API; a change to them would

Re: [PHP-DEV] The @@ is terrible, are we sure we're OK with it?

Hi > On Thu, July 23 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Randall wrote: > > > On 23/07/2020 02:00, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > Regards the vote; I don't believe that @@ has been proven unworkable, > > > however if I'm wrong about that, then the second choice selection from the > > > last vote would obviously

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] Objects can be declared falsifiable

Hi, Implement an interface and magic method to allow objects to represent false > (or empty) while still be valid instances of the custom object (type). > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/objects-can-be-falsifiable < > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/objects-can-be-falsifiable> > > If you saw the latest from

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] Objects can be declared falsifiable

Hi! Hey Larry, > > wrote: > > > 1) return null, which is a non-type, and thus you need to make the return > > type ?User or User|null, which means the caller *must* always check it's > > nullness. > > > > Allowing an object to falsify itself is a 4th, more type-safe option. > It > > lets you

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing default assertion mode to throw exceptions

Hi! On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52 AM Marcio Almada > wrote: > > > I'd like to change the default mode of assertion failures to throw. > > > The current default is to warn. In my opinion this is a bad strategy: > > > the engine asserted that something that is expect

Re: [PHP-DEV] Drop warning about non-public magic methods

Hi Grabriel, Hello internals, > > During the development of https://wiki.php.net/rfc/magic-methods-signature > I > found something that I'd like to share with you, and possibly propose to > drop it: there's a warning that php-src throws when a magic method is > declared with visibility different

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing default assertion mode to throw exceptions

Hi! > > Hello everyone, > > I'd like to change the default mode of assertion failures to throw. > The current default is to warn. In my opinion this is a bad strategy: > the engine asserted that something that is expected to be true is not, > so executing further is a bad idea. This leaves

Re: [PHP-DEV] [CONCEPT][DISCUSSION] Instance as boolean

Hi, > > Hey Marcio, > >> >> Hi >> >> > >> > Re casting - In the previous thread the following concern was presented >> > and I don’t know enough about that area to respond effectively: "I'd >> > endorse avoiding object-to- casts via cast operations: they are a >> > good source of bugs. My

Re: [PHP-DEV] [CONCEPT][DISCUSSION] Instance as boolean

Hi > > Re casting - In the previous thread the following concern was presented and I > don’t know enough about that area to respond effectively: "I'd endorse > avoiding object-to- casts via cast operations: they are a good source > of bugs. My rationale for the discouragement of magic cast

Re: [PHP-DEV] [CONCEPT][DISCUSSION] Instance as boolean

Hello Josh, > Link to working draft: https://bit.ly/php-0001 >From a type safety POV I'd prefer to have an interface available, the same way we did to the Stringable interface RFC. But I'd rather keep these engine affecting behaviors with the same magic method naming

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Treat namespaced names as single token, relax reserved keyword restrictions

Hi, What other language allows this? None that I can think of. Do we want PHP > doing something it's most closely related languages do not allow? Why > don't they allow this? Most language implementations don't do that because we are all using parser generators to do the heavy lifting of

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Shorter attribute syntax

Hi, > > 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. > > > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Shorter attribute syntax

Hello! > > 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. I'd also prefer any

Re: [PHP-DEV] Any interest in a list type?

Hello! > > Before I create an RFC or attempt a reference implementation, is there any > interest in adding (and then obviously supporting in perpetuity) a list > type? > > The first line of PHP's documentation for "array" states: "An array in PHP > is actually an ordered map". There are some

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] PHP Namespace in core

> > Hi internals, > > I hope you're doing well. > > I'd like to announce the PHP Namespace in core RFC for discussion. > The RFC is authored by me together with George Peter Banyard and it's > purpose > is nothing more like to allow the use of PHP Namespace in the core. > > The RFC is described at

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow trailing comma in parameter lists

> > Hi internals, > > This has been declined in the past, but I just keep making this mistake, > and believe it deserves reconsideration... > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/trailing_comma_in_parameter_list > > Nikita I have no idea why we failed to approve trailing comma over lists in general, but

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow ::class on objects

Em qui., 9 de jan. de 2020 às 20:57, Mike Schinkel escreveu: > > > On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:53 PM, Marcio Almada wrote: > > > > Because we would be expanding a construct that already looks > > inappropriate from a purely > > semantic POV with aliases that als

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow ::class on objects

> > Hey Marco, > > > On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Marcio Almada wrote: > > > > Regarding the inclusion of new keywords with similar behavior of `:class`: > > > > Would `Interfaces\FooInterface::trait` or `Traits\FooTrait::interface` > > cause a run ti

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow ::class on objects

About the proposal itself of allowing `($expression)::class`, I'd be in favor. > > > Den tor. 9. jan. 2020 kl. 22.41 skrev Mike Schinkel : > > > > Traits are compiler assisted code copy/paste and not contracts (unlike > > interfaces), so there is no gain in having ::trait. > > It can already be

Re: [PHP-DEV] exit() via exception

Hi! > > I don't believe atexit applies to os._exit(). In any case, I agree that > > this is something we're currently missing -- we should probably add a > > pcntl_exit() for this purpose. It should be noted though that this is > > really very different from exit(), which is still quite graceful

Re: [PHP-DEV] exit() via exception

> I have one simple suggestion: Introduce `EngineShutdown -> Throwable`, > bind `exit|die` to it but disallow > `catch(\EngineShutdown $e)` at compile time. This would allow keeping > backwards compatibility to > scenario 2 without messing with our current exception hierarchy. > > > Nikita >

Re: [PHP-DEV] exit() via exception

Em sex, 11 de out de 2019 às 08:05, Nikita Popov escreveu: > > Hi, > Hello :) > Currently exit() is implemented using bailout and unclean shutdown, which > means that we're going to perform a longjmp back to the top-level scope and > let the memory manager clean up all the memory it knows

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecation of fallback to root scope

2018-02-03 14:46 GMT-02:00 Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@gmail.com>: > > 2018-02-03 6:27 GMT-02:00 Wes <netmo@gmail.com>: > >> Hello PHPeople. I just published the RFC "Deprecation of fallback to root >> scope". >> >> It is quite a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Deprecation of fallback to root scope

2018-02-03 6:27 GMT-02:00 Wes : > Hello PHPeople. I just published the RFC "Deprecation of fallback to root > scope". > > It is quite a substantial change, but as you can read in the RFC, can be a > (basically) transparent one. > I'm referring to the possibility to shim it in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Add __toArray() method to objects that would be called on cast to array

2017-03-16 11:01 GMT-03:00 Marco Pivetta : > Since some folks keep banging on "it's not a BC break", I propose a > challenge in fixing this particular BC break example (reads: find a > different way to make it work, and no warnings/notices allowed): > > I made a very

Re: [PHP-DEV] Not autoloading functions

Hi, Rasmus! 2017-01-21 4:14 GMT-04:00 Rasmus Schultz : > > How hard is it to write Foo::bar? You never have to go more > than one level. I don't see a point in mixing internal function > namespace with class methods for the sake of saving typing couple of > characters. > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] - Disallow Multiple Constructor Calls

Hi Tim, I'm ok with the idea. But could you elaborate why not propose a deprecation before the error on PHP 8? Also, one point about the future scope "Add shorthand parent() as alternative to parent::__construct().": Do we really need to introduce more language constructs that look like valid

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Throwable error code's type generalization

Hi Wes, 2017-01-08 15:44 GMT-04:00 Wes : > Yes, you can. > http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.magic.php#object.tostring :P > It's still not guaranteed that the returned value is "stringifiable" as it was before. Logging code would now need is_object + method_exist

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] - Immutable classes and properties

2016-12-11 12:57 GMT-04:00 Silvio Marijić : > Hi, > > Discussion is open for following rfc https://wiki.php.net/rfc/immutability > > Cheers > Hi, Can you make a pull request? I'd like to comment the patch but it's not possible to make inline reviews only with a diff

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes

2016-11-18 22:10 GMT-04:00 Yasuo Ohgaki : > Hi Joe, > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Joe Watkins > wrote: > > I think most people would be happy to provide a reason, if you have it > > listed. > > It should be listed, because it should have been

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes

2016-11-17 13:18 GMT-04:00 Joe Watkins : > Afternoon internals, > > This has been discussed before in various RFC threads, there does seem to > be some consensus that 50%+1 votes could be harmful. > > To what degree, I am not sure. > > I raise for discussion the topic of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New operator for context-dependent escaping

2016-07-18 16:29 GMT-04:00 Dan Ackroyd : > On 17 July 2016 at 04:49, Michael Vostrikov > wrote: > > > If some library really need to replace existing handler of application, > it can call unregisterHandler() directly. > > But then there is no

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New operator for context-dependent escaping

2016-07-18 16:03 GMT-04:00 Rasmus Schultz : > > Registry of functions - is exactly how escaping is performed in Symfony > and Twig. > > For one, that does not mean it's a good idea. > > For another, the registry in Symfony (at least, I don't know about Twig) is > inside an

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New operator for context-dependent escaping

2016-07-16 11:33 GMT-04:00 Michael Vostrikov : > > Hello. > I have created RFC about context-dependent escaping operator. > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/escaping_operator > > Initial discussion was here: http://marc.info/?t=14661919911 Hi, A few possible RFC

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types

hi! From: Mathieu Rochette <math...@texthtml.net> > Date: 2016-04-23 12:44 GMT-04:00 > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types > > > On 04/22/2016 06:12 AM, Marcio Almada wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > We just completed the draft for the "Callable Ty

[PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types

Redirecting this to the list as this message was sent privately probably by accident :) -- Forwarded message -- From: Mathieu Rochette <math...@texthtml.net> Date: 2016-04-23 12:44 GMT-04:00 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types To: Marcio Almada <marcio.w...@

[PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types

Hello everyone, We just completed the draft for the "Callable Types" RFC. This RFC has been recently mentioned during other type related threads on this mailing list, so it feels to be the right time to put the proposal in context: The proposal is at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable-types The

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Functional Interfaces

Hi! 2016-04-19 11:21 GMT-04:00 Larry Garfield : > On 4/19/16 10:02 AM, Rowan Collins wrote: > >> Dmitry Stogov wrote on 19/04/2016 15:48: >> >>> callable-type is much simpler solution for this use-case. >>> Usage of Interfaces to check function prototypes is a bit tricky,

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Functional Interfaces

Hi! 2016-04-18 15:17 GMT-04:00 Stanislav Malyshev : > Hi! > > > Please review the following RFC: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/functional-interfaces > > > > An implementation is provided, and is testable on 3v4l. > > This looks like a rather narrow case

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Nullable Return Type Declaration

Hi! 2016-04-17 23:56 GMT-04:00 Larry Garfield : > On 04/17/2016 02:19 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote: > >> Everything always has pros and cons and I do not think that there is one >> answer to all of these questions. Different languages handle this >> problem differently. PHP has

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Union Types

Hi! You are everywhere :P 2016-04-17 6:28 GMT-04:00 Lin Yo-An : > I think it will be better if union type is only allowed in the "type" > statement, like what you described in your RFC. > > type Iterable = Array | Traversable; > > If we can

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC Proposal] var keyword deprecation/removal

Hi! 2016-02-18 15:10 GMT-04:00 Colin O'Dell : > Hello everyone, > > I'd like to propose an RFC to deprecate and eventually remove the "var" > keyword. > > My understanding is that this keyword was kept in PHP 5 for > backwards-compatibility with PHP 4. However, it's been 9

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Allow specifying keys in list()

Hi, 2016-02-05 23:58 GMT-04:00 Levi Morrison : > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> It's been more than two weeks since I first proposed this RFC, and there's >> no outstanding issues preventing moving towards a vote. There's

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Normalize token_get_all() output (with flag)

Total +1. I wanted to propose that, without the flag, but it got too late for the PHP7 BC breaking season. Adding a flag seems to be a better idea :P 2016-01-04 18:56 GMT-04:00 Sara Golemon : > I swear, 2016 isn't going to be "An RFC per day" year, but... > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Trailing commas in all list syntax

Hi, 2015-11-03 16:22 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye Powers : > Hey internals! > > The RFC to allow trailing commas to function calls & declarations has been > withdrawn in favor of the a RFC that broadens the scope to all list syntax. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/list-syntax-trailing-commas

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Void Return Type RFC

Hi, > > That's what I am having issue with. I don't see the case where such > guarantee is useful. If you're not using the return value, why do you > care if it's always null or sometimes null and sometimes baloney > sandwich? If you need always null, you have it: null. You don't need to > use

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Void Return Type RFC

Hi, 2015-10-29 17:43 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev : > Hi! > >> Well yes, but the interface description currently says that it'll return >> a value of some unspecified type. That's what omitting the return type >> declaration does. > > No, it doesn't do that. It doesn't do

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Void Return Type RFC

Hi, Welcome back, Andrea! It's great to see you contributing here again :) 2015-10-28 21:08 GMT-03:00 Andrea Faulds : > Hi everyone, > > It’s been two weeks, so voting on this RFC can start. The rules are as > usual. This is a language change, so a 2/3 majority is required. > > The

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Revisit trailing commas in function arguments

Hi, 2015-10-14 16:25 GMT-03:00 Sammy Kaye Powers : > Hello internals friends! > > I'd like to open a discussion on the RFC to allow trailing commas in > function arguments. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/revisit-trailing-comma-function-args > > Discuss! :) > > Thanks, > Sammy Kaye

Re: [PHP-DEV] Arrow function expressions in PHP

Hi, 2015-09-30 8:10 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins : > Levi Morrison wrote on 29/09/2015 22:55: >>> >>> When you choose the function($x) ~> $x * 2 (or with ==> or => >>> >operator), you end up saving around 5 or 6 characters from the "long >>> >declaration", ending up with

Re: [PHP-DEV] Let's discuss enums!

Hi, 2015-09-17 20:06 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins : > Hi All, > > This has come up in passing a few times recently, but I'm not sure there's > ever been a dedicated discussion of it: would it be useful for PHP to have a > built-in Enumeration type, and if so, how should it

Re: [PHP-DEV] Requesting RFC karma

+1 He did most of the hard work for this particular RFC already, so it would be great to give him permission to edit too. 2015-09-03 11:08 GMT-03:00 Nikita Nefedov : > Hey everyone, > > I'm asking for some RFC karma for wiki account nikita2206 > in preparation of callable

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Syntactical inconsistency with new group use syntax

Hi, 2015-08-18 19:18 GMT-03:00 Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de: On 18.08.2015 at 22:47, Arne Blankerts wrote: while playing around with the new group use syntax, I stumbled upon an inconsistency of which I'm not sure whether or not it is expected. For the classic syntax, while technically

Re: [PHP-DEV] Syntactical inconsistency with new group use syntax

Hi, 2015-08-18 17:47 GMT-03:00 Arne Blankerts thes...@netpirates.net: Hi everyone, while playing around with the new group use syntax, I stumbled upon an inconsistency of which I'm not sure whether or not it is expected. For the classic syntax, while technically pointless, a leading \ for

[PHP-DEV] VCS Account Request: @marcioAlmada

Hi, I've been contributing with language RFCs and bug fixes in the past. A VCS account would be handy for the very obvious fixes. Thanks! -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Move internals discussion to a better medium

Hi, Rowan 2015-08-03 4:31 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com: On 2 August 2015 23:35:38 GMT+01:00, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: This is their email announce the end of their mailing list back in 2015 https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2015-January/011558

Re: [PHP-DEV] Move internals discussion to a better medium

Hi, 2015-08-02 9:01 GMT-03:00 Dor Tchizik d...@tchizik.com: Hello internals! I wanted to propose a change to how PHP discussions are made. Currently, PHP discussions are held on the various mailing lists, managed by an old mailing list system, without any proper alternative interface to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Move internals discussion to a better medium

Hi 2015-08-02 16:52 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com: On 02/08/2015 20:10, Marcio Almada wrote: As you pointed github issues, it's worth noting that Rust internals already use github to manage RFCs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AT-lang

Re: [PHP-DEV] Move internals discussion to a better medium

Hi, 2015-08-02 17:46 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com: On 02/08/2015 21:19, Marcio Almada wrote: Hi 2015-08-02 16:52 GMT-03:00 Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com: On 02/08/2015 20:10, Marcio Almada wrote: As you pointed github issues, it's worth noting that Rust

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting choice for language changes (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count)

Hi, you replied to the wrong thread ;) 2015-07-22 19:38 GMT-03:00 S.A.N ua.san.a...@gmail.com: I am satisfied, the possibility of group declarations, but the that lack: ?php use App\RestException\ // name RestException, not imported to current namespace :( { Gone, NotFound,

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 and types

Stas, 2015-07-12 5:10 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com: Hi! Not completely bogus. At least with typed properties you won't need to actually write the docblocks to have the IDE hints. It's a minor win for IDE users too. I don't see not needing to write docblocks as a win,

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 and types

Lester, 2015-07-12 5:27 GMT-03:00 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: On 12/07/15 09:10, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Not completely bogus. At least with typed properties you won't need to actually write the docblocks to have the IDE hints. It's a minor win for IDE users too. I don't see not

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 and types

Hi, 2015-07-11 15:41 GMT-03:00 Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net: Am 11.07.2015 um 19:53 schrieb S.A.N: It will be useful for autocomplete in IDE That argument is bogus since proper IDEs (PhpStorm, fex.) leverage docblock annotations for that already. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Throwable Interface

Hi, 2015-06-15 19:25 GMT-03:00 Aaron Piotrowski aa...@icicle.io: On Jun 15, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Anatol Belski anatol@belski.net wrote: I would then suggest Aaron to stick to the minimal voting period (announcing this as early as possible), if the voting passes - then merge the branch on

Re: [PHP-DEV] Soft-reserve void class name

Hi, I think that not reserving void by spec now is actually going against the Request For Comments process. If we don't soft reserve now we won't even have the possibility to discuss it later, this kills the discussion before it starts. The soft reservation has zero impact over PHP7.0, no one

Re: [PHP-DEV] Context Sensitive Language RFC - Implementation Candidate

Hi! Sorry for late response, forgot about this RFC. I've only glanced over it, but the patch looks okay from the technical side. No problem :) there are other more important issues being discussed that should be prioritized, specially your engine exception RFC. The thing that's bothering

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Exceptions in the engine

Hi Stas, 2015-04-30 13:51 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com: Hi! We could make an exception (sic !) and add the Throwable interface to PHP7, even after feature freeze, because it is an easy pick and having a clear Exception model for 7.0 is to my opinion very important.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Reserving More Types in PHP 7

Hi, 2015-04-26 17:00 GMT-03:00 Joshua Holmer jholmer...@gmail.com: There is the approved RFC at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/context_sensitive_lexer which is listed as pending implementation which should alleviate these BC breaks significantly. The linked RFC mentions this one specifically under

[PHP-DEV] Context Sensitive Language RFC - Implementation Candidate

Hi, The Context Sensitive Lexer RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/context_sensitive_lexer passed :) and by the time of the voting phase, we decided to vote for the feature only and later discuss quality analysis on the implementations aimed to fulfill the RFC. First, I'd like to thank you all for

Re: [PHP-DEV] New RFC draft static class constructor

Hi, 2015-04-13 10:37 GMT-03:00 Johannes Ott m...@deroetzi.de: Hi, finally I managed to do my first RFC draft. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/static_class_constructor I hope I have done everything correct so far and I'm looking forward to your feedback on it. As I already mentioned in the

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls

Hi, I had no time to reply all emails since yesterday, but right now we are having a voting with 2 yes votes vs 16 no votes. I think we all agree that the RFC won't pass and I'm withdrawing the RFC for the following reasons: 1. The sooner we end the voting period the better for the PHP time

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls

no votes. If you already voted, don't worry, it's just some minor changes and the voting will be restarted by the end of the day (March 15) so we don't loose the schedule. Another email will follow with a summary of what changed. Thanks for the comprehension. 2015-03-14 20:54 GMT-03:00 Marcio Almada

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls

Hi 2015-03-15 8:33 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com: On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls

[PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE][RESTART] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls

Hi, As promised, the Strict Argument Count RFC vote was restarted: RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_argcount PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1108 There was no need to update the BC break section. The only minor change was the addition of the following section:

[PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Strict Argument Count On Function Calls

Hi, The Strict Argument Count RFC is now on voting phase: RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_argcount PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1108 The voting will close in exactly 14 days counting from now (using the date/time from this email as a reference). If you have any doubt about what

Re: [PHP-DEV] A plea for unity on scalar types

Hi, 2015-03-13 12:45 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com: All, [...] I respectfully ask Zeev to retract his current proposal as it's currently failing with 68% of voters voting against it (currently 16:34). Without extending the timeline for 7, there's very little chance of it

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types

Hi, 2015-03-13 17:44 GMT-03:00 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com: -Original Message- From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi 2015-03-13 6:02 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net: Le mer. 11 mars 2015 à 22:44, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com a écrit : 2015-03-11 6:27 GMT-03:00 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: On 11/03/15 09:05, wp12173047-156224 wp12173047-156224 wrote: Most of the examples

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

2015-03-10 12:31 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net: Hello, Le lun. 2 mars 2015 à 00:03, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com a écrit : I'm globally +0.5, however I have some concerns: What about constructors? Children classes may have a bigger number of arguments

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

2015-03-11 6:27 GMT-03:00 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: On 11/03/15 09:05, wp12173047-156224 wp12173047-156224 wrote: BTW, the current PHP silent behavior should be considered even more confusing otherwise we wouldn't have these measurements:

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTING] Context Sensitive Lexer

Hi, 2015-03-11 11:49 GMT-03:00 Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com: On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Just passing by to announce I already have a working version of the new patch: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1158 The patch is 100

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi 2015-03-11 6:50 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net: Le mar. 10 mars 2015 à 21:04, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com a écrit : 2015-03-10 12:31 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net: Hello, Le lun. 2 mars 2015 à 00:03, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi 2015-03-11 1:49 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com: Hi! related to the proposed RFC. *But* after some heuristics it was noticeable that most warnings had a common cause. I parsed the output It doesn't matter if it has common cause or not. If I have a system of

Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting choice for language changes (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count)

2015-03-10 13:52 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com: Dan, On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote: On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote: Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, 2015-03-10 21:31 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com: Hi! - Even if you already read the RFC in the past, read it again now. - Don't claim **possible** massive BC breaks before read the measurements already done. No matter how seasoned you are with PHP, real

Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting choice for language changes (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count)

Hi, 2015-03-10 12:45 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com: On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote: Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no? It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility of gaming.

[PHP-DEV] Re: Voting choice for language changes (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count)

Hi, 2015-03-10 11:39 GMT-03:00 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net: Hello, Le ven. 6 mars 2015 à 00:44, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com a écrit : You are right about this. I'll setup a yes/no vote + a vote to decide between E_WARNING (for consistency), E_DEPRECATED or E_STRICT

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, This is a remainder that the voting for the Strict Argument Count RFC is scheduled to start on March 14th, so we still have this week for discussion and it's still a good time to give feedback. Thanks, Márcio 2015-03-01 20:02 GMT-03:00 Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com: Hi, internals

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTING] Context Sensitive Lexer

to vote for the feature as the new implementation is already on it's way. There still some work to be done, please refer to the task list on the pull request to see what still needs to be done. It would be nice to have the new patch reviewed too. Thanks, Márcio 2015-03-04 14:29 GMT-03:00 Marcio

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Anonymous Classes

Hi, 2015-03-07 8:28 GMT-03:00 Robert Stoll p...@tutteli.ch: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Patrick Schaaf [mailto:p...@bof.de] Gesendet: Samstag, 7. März 2015 08:22 An: Philip Sturgeon Cc: internals; Robert Stoll Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Anonymous Classes Am

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, 2015-03-04 21:51 GMT-03:00 Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net: I don't think we need to deprecate func_get_args(). We may have ?php function f($a, ...) { var_dump(func_get_args()); } f(1,2,3); ? ...$a packs arguments. Using ... as variable parameter indication may be allowed.

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, 2015-03-05 20:08 GMT-03:00 Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net: Hi Marcio, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: It would be nothing new or weird. It's just a simple compile time check. We already inspect code in many other situations while compiling

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTING] Context Sensitive Lexer

Hi 2015-03-04 5:52 GMT-03:00 Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com: After reviewing the implementation, I've decided to vote no on this RFC. I had originally assumed that if this proposal is limited to method names and class constants only the implementation should be pretty simple and robust.

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, 2015-03-03 16:48 GMT-03:00 Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net: Hi Marcio, I understand your reasons. Compatibility is important, but detecting function body contents and suppressing errors by engine is too hacky. Raising E_DEPRECATE/E_STRICT by function definition seems the way to go.

[PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi, internals I'm moving the Strict Argument Count RFC into discussion phase: RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/strict_argcount PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1108 Many different opinions were collected during research phase and the RFC was updated with real BC break measurements and other

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][DISCUSSION] Strict Argument Count

Hi Yasuo, 2015-03-02 1:43 GMT-03:00 Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net: Hi Marcio, On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote: I like the idea. /** fn expects a variable-length argument lists */ function fn($arg) { $arg = func_get_arg(); $args

[PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTING] Context Sensitive Lexer

Hi, Since no more issues appeared on discussion, the voting for the Context Sensitive Lexer is now open. The voting will close in exactly 14 days counting from now: RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/context_sensitive_lexer#votes Since so few people participated on discussions, if you decide to vote

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Group Use Declarations

Hi 2015-02-25 8:45 GMT-03:00 Pascal MARTIN, AFUP mail...@pascal-martin.fr: We've discussed this RFC with other people of AFUP, and even though there have been quite a few mails exchanged, I'm sorry to say we didn't reach a consensus -- and, as such, are neither -1 nor +1. Trying to

Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC][VOTE] Group Use Declarations

Hi, The voting for Group Use Declarations is now closed with 39 yes and 19 no votes. According to the established 2/3 majority requirement, it passed. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations#votes If you voted no: your feedback is still as important as before, specially in case you

  1   2   >