On 29 July 2017 21:22:30 BST, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> On a slight tangent, I consider $_SERVER to be a broken pile of
>> "we'll just shove this in here and hope for the best", and I will
>> oppose any attempt to convert it into an object which doesn't
>> reorganize its
> -Original Message-
> From: kalle@gmail.com [mailto:kalle@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kalle
> Sommer Nielsen
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 2:36 AM
> To: Stanislav Malyshev
> Cc: Sara Golemon ; PHP internals
> Subject:
Hi
2017-07-29 22:17 GMT+02:00 Stanislav Malyshev :
> I've seen scenarios where it is very useful. Sure, you can always build
> another layer of indirection and solve it this way, but it's just making
> people do more work for no reason. I don't see any problem that would
Hi!
> I for one thing it makes a lot of sense to make superglobals
> read-only, writing to them seems more like a hack anyway and should be
> avoided
I've seen scenarios where it is very useful. Sure, you can always build
another layer of indirection and solve it this way, but it's just making
Hi!
> On a slight tangent, I consider $_SERVER to be a broken pile of
> "we'll just shove this in here and hope for the best", and I will
> oppose any attempt to convert it into an object which doesn't
> reorganize its keys to be sane, documented, and as cross-platform as
> the SAPI layer can
On 29 July 2017 15:05:57 BST, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>Hi Rowan,
>
>Rowan Collins wrote:
>> On a slight tangent, I consider $_SERVER to be a broken pile of
>"we'll just shove this in here and hope for the best", and I will
>oppose any attempt to convert it into an object which doesn't
> On Jul 29, 2017, at 05:27, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
> Designing classes/interfaces to be correct the first time is a really
> difficult thing to do, and then maintaining classes/interfaces is hard
> as any change to a method is a BC break.
Having done it several times
Hi Rowan,
Rowan Collins wrote:
On a slight tangent, I consider $_SERVER to be a broken pile of "we'll just shove
this in here and hope for the best", and I will oppose any attempt to convert it
into an object which doesn't reorganize its keys to be sane, documented, and as
cross-platform as
On 28 July 2017 at 16:11, Sara Golemon wrote:
> ftr; I'd vote in favor of several BC breaking things to do with
autoglobals, among them:
>
>* Make them objects (though ArrayAccess based for less hostile BC breakage)
Why objects?
Although these are kind of just about related
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:03 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
make POST/GET/SERVER readonly - only when you refactor a 25 line code
base as well as deplyed code which relies on the framework did the right
thing with them previously :-)
Are you advocating for read-only or
Hi Sara,
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Sara Golemon
>wrote:
ftr; I'd vote in favor of several BC breaking things to do with
autoglobals, among them:
* Make them objects (though ArrayAccess based for less hostile BC
breakage)
* Make most of
On Fr, 2017-07-28 at 11:11 -0400, Sara Golemon wrote:
> I'm sure there will be many strong opinions on this, but let's move
> this to a new thread. :D
Language-wise, I think, refactoring that system would be good. I guess
a refactoring is a register_globals-like project, which took 10 years
from
2017-07-28 17:11 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon :
> I'm sure there will be many strong opinions on this, but let's move
> this to a new thread. :D
>
> 1. This would be an 8.0 change as it does represent a significant BC change.
> 2. We can discuss the possibility of INI options or other
13 matches
Mail list logo