On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
annotations just... refrain from using them?
We've been there before. You seem to be thinking as a person who only
writes software for
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Lang l...@b1-systems.de wrote:
Am 11.01.2013 05:55, schrieb dukeofgaming:
I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
annotations just... refrain from using them?
Although I am not the least against annotations
Hi,
I suggest you start defining action items in the RFC. After reading what
Stas and others say, this looks like too big a task to discuss in itself,
so it should be definitely be broken down.
You will probably find that as it is broken down, actual development
support will surface by itself.
I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using
annotations just... refrain from using them?
Annotations are currently used by the industry through workarounds to the
PHP language, so any argument on it's usefulness is completely moot. Adding
native support for this (no one
AOP is not very well understood, it took me at least a week of going back
and forth trying to grasp the core concepts. Before getting into debates
(because the Observer Event patterns could still allow for AOP-like
programming), I advice everybody to watch the following two videos
Using Aspect
AOP is the future and a very awesome complement to OOP. It is a shame that
very few are doing it and I think this would attract some good attention to
PHP after traits (both are horizontal reuse mechanisms).
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Peter Nguyen pe...@likipe.se wrote:
Well, you just
This is a great idea (the runkit, not the rootkit).
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you think?
I think I need to get my lens prescription updated. I thought the subject
line read, Add *rootkit *to PHP Runtime and was already sharpening my
Now that we have Traits, lets bring in Aspects too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming
Also, PHP is not necessarily evil by allowing non-OO code, but maybe we
could do better at the non-OO code side of things by adding prototyped
inheritance in a javascript-ish spirit to at
Awesome news, this particular decision tends not to be an easy one in open
source software communities (well, perhaps now it is easier with all the
traction git github have) so I think this is evidence of how good the RFC
process is.
Is there a github repository already?.
Best regards and
ras...@php.net wrote:
On 09/07/2011 11:15 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
Awesome news, this particular decision tends not to be an easy one in
open
source software communities (well, perhaps now it is easier with all the
traction git github have) so I think this is evidence of how good the
RFC
The only think that worries me is that most of the time people choose the
service and not the tool.
On one hand you have Mercurial, a more than capable DVCS with the lowest
barrier of entry IMHO (you will love it while you learn it), and the very
good service that is Bitbucket, now kind of
Hi, very glad this topic has resurfaced and I honesly think using a DVCS
will be a game-changer for PHP. Just wanted to drop a couple of answers I've
dedicated some time in at SE, several diagrams, to-point explanations and
references that might be of uso to clear out introductory topics.
Hi,
I've always thought that just supressing the function keyword could work
as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat
similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand:
http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40
Regards,
David
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind gwy...@darkrainfall.orgwrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal t...@daylessday.org wrote:
Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda
hieroglyphic?
No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be
discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for
the multiple major releases option is *not* workable.
If its because of the constant
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Pascal COURTOIS pascal.court...@nouvo.com
wrote:
Le 16/06/2011 04:36, dukeofgaming a écrit :
Hi,
I think that —in any context— the if it aint broke don't fix it is a
very
depressing attitude to have, and a very wrong one in any open source
community
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Pascal COURTOIS
pascal.court...@nouvo.comwrote:
Le 16/06/2011 08:01, dukeofgaming a écrit :
Sorry if the question is dumb, but, how many core developers does PHP
have?,
how many in total (including non-core contributors)?.
That's not the point. Whatever
Hi,
I think that —in any context— the if it aint broke don't fix it is a very
depressing attitude to have, and a very wrong one in any open source
community.
If the signal to noise ratio is the problem, I think its better to focus on
that problem, not shutting down the signal. If PHP is a
Hi David,
That would be awesome. I do want to contribute but haven't got time to get
to know all PHP's quirks. I have some knowledge of compiler theory and low
level C/C++ (memory management, system programming).
Some stuff I had in mind to try implementing:
- The object(...) language
+1 for callable, it is really more consistent.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-06-07, David Zülke david.zue...@bitextender.com wrote:
On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
callback is callable, the opposite
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
weierophin...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
--0016e68ee3e4bc4b0e04a525bac6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1 for callable
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
dukeofgaming wrote:
Ok, I found that Ruby added support for a new JSONy syntax a little while
ago, this is interesting:
http://webonrails.com/2009/02/06/ruby-191-hash/
But it doesn't have anything to do with JSON
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Sean Coates s...@seancoates.com wrote:
I was careful in the RFC to indicate that this is *not* JSON, but if others
feel as strongly as you do about the use of this term, I think it can be
removed without hurting the idea (as you indicated).
Still, it is
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
I'd to go with a 60% for language syntax, 50+1 for new exts or sapis.
Other question is who can vote. For one, I like to have external
people being able to vote, like frameworks/apps lead developers as
well as @php.net
How about the Yaml extension?, it looks well maintained enough:
http://pecl.php.net/package/yaml
Regards,
David
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Hannes Magnusson hannes.magnus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 01:00, Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com wrote:
In parallel I'd also see if
produce *PHP code*, that, with some mingling and stripping,
*PHP's own json_decode() could not process*.
Perhaps I should have made that more clear, sorry.
David
On 04.06.2011, at 03:17, dukeofgaming wrote:
Hi,
After reading all the debate in the other thread it is still not clear
I like the idea of supporting both = and :. Would this work?:
$foo = {
'bar' : function(){
echo 'baz';
}
};
$foo-bar();
And I'm guessing this shouldn't work:
$array = array('foo' : 'bar');
Regards,
David
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Chris Stockton
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Sanford Whiteman
sa...@cypressintegrated.com wrote:
-- I do not feel that the acronym JSON has any clarifying nor edifying
place in the RFC describing this syntax.
Rather, I would suggest one of the following:
· JavaScript-like [object|array] literal syntax
How about a separate email topic dedicated to voting?, that would reduce the
signal to noise ratio for votes (and increase it for opinions).
Regards,
David
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Martin Scotta martinsco...@gmail.comwrote:
Martin Scotta
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Pierre Joye
Hi,
After reading all the debate in the other thread it is still not clear to me
what the real advantages are of adopting JSON syntax for native PHP
types. Doing json_encode to an object and expect the code and output to be
the same seems useless to me, and reading David Zülke's example it seems
State the case for JSON in a separate RFC and progress will be made, but I
think there is a fundamental mistake here: serialization formats are the
*means* for interoperability, not the ends.
The only way I see JSONy syntax would help is if PHP code —with JSONy
syntax— would be parsed by a JSON
Hi,
I remember having wiki editing privileges not so long ago, I was going to
enter and add the entry for discussions at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays but I cannot edit anymore.
Would it be too much to ask to have them enabled?.
Best regards,
David Vega
:28 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
dukeofgaming wrote:
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/35074/im-a-subversion-geek-why-i-should-consider-or-not-consider-mercurial-or-git-or/35080#35080
So, I don't want to make debate here of wether centralized is better than
Thanks, I also don't think that was the case.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Philip Olson phi...@roshambo.org wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 11:05 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
Hi,
I remember having wiki editing privileges not so long ago, I was going to
enter and add
:
dukeofgaming wrote:
I thought it might be interesting for all to read some feedback I got
from some questions I made to the Joomla community, specifically, the
guys and gals that have been implementing the decoupling of the Joomla
framework: the Joomla Platform.
They currently still use svn
Hmm, I can edit pages within the RFC namespace but I cannot edit
https://wiki.php.net/rfc.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I also don't think that was the case.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Philip Olson
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Drak wrote:
At the current time I think that PHP would need to restructure how
it is packaged up to provide a single repo in both HG or GIT.
Keeping SVN ( I'd still prefer CVS here it works BETTER as a master
After that argument, I think I'm against : now too. +1 to =
Could { } be implemented for objects too then?.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Ford, Mike m.f...@leedsmet.ac.uk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ekne...@gmail.com [mailto:ekne...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Reminder: Pls add your votes here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote
Who is allowed to vote?, are userland votes still going to count?, if so,
how does one qualify as userland voter?.
Best regards,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Philip Olson phi...@roshambo.org wrote:
Reminder: Pls add your votes here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote
Who is allowed to vote?, are userland votes still going to count?, if
so,
how does one qualify as userland voter?.
I
I still don't get it, the idea of making it look like json wont make it
json, it will be PHP, and if you dare to write you jsony object/array with
single quoted strings wont break the code even when its not JSON.
I'll say it again: not even Javascript supports 100% valid JSON. I'll say it
even
Hi,
I'm glad the topic has been picked up again, but I think there is an
inconsistency in the proposal now that we are talking about being JSON-ish:
JSON describes objects, not arrays. Then, what if [] were used for arrays
and {} for objects?, so that:
[1,2,3] //array(0=1, 1=2, 2=3)
['one':1,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'm glad the topic has been picked up again, but I think there is an
inconsistency in the proposal now that we are talking about being JSON-ish:
JSON describes objects, not arrays. Then, what if [] were used
Guys, as I said earlier, not even javascript (from javascript object
notation, as in JSON) is 100% interoperable with JSON because single quotes
are valid in javascript and not in json. I say : is way more cleaner than
= and it is a good opportunity to adopt it.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dan Birken bir...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
To be honest, ['a': 'b'] or ['a' = 'b'] is so much better than array('a'
=
'b') for general use I don't even care which one is picked, as long as one
of them is picked.
-Dan
+1 to that too. Even when I've never liked
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Rasmus ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 05/31/2011 05:42 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
I'm afraid that if : is associated with the JSON interop argument and
the
later is discarded then : will be discarded too, much like what
happened
with the echo shortcut
Also, take a peak at this: http://www.phpsadness.com/sad/45
And compare it with this:
http://perldoc.perl.org/perldsc.html#Declaration-of-a-HASH-OF-COMPLEX-RECORDS
Regards,
David Vega
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
I agree, it would be a
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Michael Shadle mike...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really want to stand on my soapbox any longer, as it's obvious
where the crowd leans on this one, but I need to clarify a couple
points a bit and feel obligated to reply to another.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:15
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
hi.
it was already discussion, Felipe created an RFC and a patch, the responses
was all positive, so I think if nobody changed their mind, we could move
this from Under Discussion to Accepted/Implemented
as I said before,
Hi,
I was wondering if object dereferentiation after constructor call is
something that has been discussed already. This is, being able to do
something like:
new MyClass()-setSomething();
Instead of:
$var = new MyClass();
$var-setSomething();
Regards,
David Vega
@Michael
Those are interesting ideas, I think you can register by yourself on the
wiki, so you can add the RFC. OTOH, and again, I must say I really think the
echo shortcut should be regarded as a separate issue, and now that there was
some consensus we shouldn't deviate from the topic.
In the
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Philip Olson phi...@roshambo.org wrote:
@all
Can we decide on decoupling ?= before going back to the general short
tag
matter?
It feels like decoupling ?= from short_open_tag will happen. And I've not
seen objections or reasons for not doing it, so
Hi,
I just wanted to ask what is the community's feeling on keeping the echo
shortcut. I know short tags are kind of deprecated and I think it is the
right call, however, I really really think the echo shortcut ?= should be
kept regardless of plain short tags, which are kind of pointless. I've
Should this go in Accepted then?.
Regards,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to ask what is the community's feeling on keeping the echo
shortcut. I know
Hi,
I'm that somebody Tyrael is talking about. FTR, I'm all for deprecating
short tags, but I do feel the echo shortcut is a separate issue. Perhaps if
?php= was implemented a greater deal of people on both sides of the
discussion would be happier.
Best regards,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at
So what would be there to discuss or agree on?, now that the topic is at
hand.
Regards,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
As far as I remember there weren't any serious objections to decoupling
?= and leaving it always enabled. It
Hi,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
So, please stop saying no to every feature request that comes in and
start to discuss the actual impact of each feature.
I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.comwrote:
Am 11.05.2011 09:35, schrieb dukeofgaming:
Que?. Are you aware that you cannot implement interface methods?.
Sorry. my bad. I mixed implementation with specification, but it would
work, no?
Eh, well, in a weird
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
The roadmap is in the form of a feature list which you can find at
http://wiki.php.net/etcwiki.php.net/etc
There is never going to be complete agreement on any feature, but once
there is enough agreement from the main
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 05/10/2011 01:04 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:
The whole thing required a lot of, what I would characterize as,
hand-holding. Internals is not the most open community and needs not
only good arguments, but persistence. And,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?:
https://wiki.php.net/todo
That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto-correct messed it up)
I see. I have
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
My main concern is the trickle-down effect a major low-level engine
addition causes. Your patch is just the tip of the iceberg which will cause
dozens of people weeks of work to account for the new code all across the
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Larz,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.com
wrote:
Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
- Entities with knowledge about its persistence
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi duke,
I moved it to rejected in pro of a new proposal.
I briefly drafted it here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock
There's a lot of things to be officially defined, but basic
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
different
priorities and expectations about the PHP language than the core devs.
to
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.comwrote:
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
irc
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
That's simply not true. But just because one group of users feel
strongly
about something doesn't mean it should go in. There has to be some
level
of
curation or we end up with every feature under the sun
Hi,
I'm not a frequent poster in the list but I thought I'd really should give
my 1 cent here when I saw popular being an argument for using DVCSs, its
not, and its neither fashion nor cargo cult, it is just a plain eye opener
experience of how neither SVN or CVS are the base of all versioning
important for them to be able to
work in a way that is comfortable for them. So a mirror or two would be
nice, and I'd push for that, but a change of official repo I will merely
suggest be considered longer term.
Ben.
On 28/04/11 1:07 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
Hi,
I'm not a frequent
Hi, just to drop an opinion on something I felt natural when reading this:
how about a word instead?:
$value = 'Not set' unless $a['key'];
I think it would be way more readable.
Regards,
David
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Adam Richardson simples...@gmail.comwrote:
We need to be
Garfield la...@garfieldtech.comwrote:
The Drupal project's decision making process for moving to Git is
documented
extensively here:
http://groups.drupal.org/node/48818
Just another data point.
--Larry Garfield
On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 2:52:53 pm dukeofgaming wrote:
Hi,
I
,
but not the shell integration, at all. I agree on visualizing repository
tree on the GUI though. In the end its up to each individual.
Regards,
David
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
dukeofgaming wrote:
Yet another one here:http://hginit.com/00.html
I toast to that. Get rid of T_VAR already.
Regards,
David
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.netwrote:
2010/11/30 Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net:
Hi
2010/11/30 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net:
With this patch, something looks inconsistent to
How about deprecation then?
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:58 AM, André Rømcke a...@ez.no wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net
wrote:
2010/11/30 Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net:
Hi
2010/11/30 Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net:
With
actually worried
about interoperability, meaning its possible to import files from other
(D)VCSs.
Regards,
David
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
dukeofgaming wrote:
Its actually faster to use the command line when u have enough practice;
picture
Hi,
I was following this path to push the adoption of a DVCS for the Joomla
project and I started to create the required documentation to make an
informed argument and evaluation, I made some diagrams to make the case for
their need for good team development and workflows, feel free to borrow any
Hi, I've never participated on the lists, but this was a topic I could just
not look away from.
My take on this is that it all boils down to the statistics of the
developers and contributors, as Gwynne said, there is really no much merit
on technical aspects of the tools... but rather how the
77 matches
Mail list logo
