Johannes Ott wrote:
I tried to get some RFC karma for my wiki account, following those lines:
Email internals@lists.php.net requesting RFC karma for your wiki
account. In the email, remind people about the RFC you plan to create.
Note that RFC karma does not automatically give you karma to
I think I now get the misunderstanding I had on your destructor question
Sorry for confusion. My points are agnostic about implementation details
and concrete code. It's up to ppl to use this feature as they like.
- first point is a logical conclusion: If there is a cctor, there should
be
Am 15.03.2015 um 11:02 schrieb Crypto Compress:
I think I now get the misunderstanding I had on your destructor question
Sorry for confusion. My points are agnostic about implementation details
and concrete code. It's up to ppl to use this feature as they like.
Okay get your point, but
Am 13.03.2015 um 01:33 schrieb Christoph Becker:
Johannes Ott wrote:
And i although see no DI or Singleton pattern to use here to get the
same functionality, if you want to use like Config::getHostname() and
not like Config::getInstance()-getHostname() which is really
unnecessary
Am 15.03.2015 um 19:47 schrieb Rowan Collins:
On 15/03/2015 10:41, Johannes Ott wrote:
Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or when not to use at all, can do crucial
On 15/03/2015 10:41, Johannes Ott wrote:
Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or when not to use at all, can do crucial things.
Because he although can do without the
Am 15.03.2015 um 12:35 schrieb Crypto Compress:
You should reread your mails and keep insults to yourself:
as already discussed several times
ppl, who doesn't understand
some beginner who is doing such horiffic code
maybe think more about what he is doing
doing 15 years of
On 15/03/2015 20:52, Johannes Ott wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 19:47 schrieb Rowan Collins:
On 15/03/2015 10:41, Johannes Ott wrote:
Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or
Am 14.03.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Crypto Compress:
So I do not see the need of a explicit class deconstructor, because the
language should already react correctly on this issues as I can see so
far
The language cannot know the order of dependencies and how to destruct
them.
A dependcy between
Am 14.03.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Crypto Compress:
So I do not see the need of a explicit class deconstructor, because the
language should already react correctly on this issues as I can see so
far
The language cannot know the order of dependencies and how to destruct
them.
A dependcy between
Am 13.03.2015 um 11:30 schrieb Johannes Ott:
Am 13.03.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Hello Johannes,
in other mails you argue with Rowan about global state. I think it's
better to focus on innovation of class context in global scope, as
it's impossible to reason the disadvantages of
So I do not see the need of a explicit class deconstructor, because the
language should already react correctly on this issues as I can see so
far
The language cannot know the order of dependencies and how to destruct
them.
A dependcy between destructors of instances, which the language have
Am 14.03.2015 um 07:49 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Am 13.03.2015 um 11:30 schrieb Johannes Ott:
Am 13.03.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Hello Johannes,
in other mails you argue with Rowan about global state. I think it's
better to focus on innovation of class context in global scope, as
Johannes Ott wrote on 13/03/2015 15:35:
I think as Christoph wrote we should now do a cut here for the inital
discussion, because we are in a circle now. I will now get on at the RFC
process, and will prepare the RFC-draft asap.
I will try to summarize as good as possible all discussion points
Hello Johannes,
in other mails you argue with Rowan about global state. I think it's
better to focus on innovation of class context in global scope, as
it's impossible to reason the disadvantages of global state away.
(Discussions on variable scope are painful too.)
And two questions:
1. By
Am 13.03.2015 um 01:33 schrieb Christoph Becker:
Johannes Ott wrote:
And i although see no DI or Singleton pattern to use here to get the
same functionality, if you want to use like Config::getHostname() and
not like Config::getInstance()-getHostname() which is really
unnecessary
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 23:36:
Am 12.03.2015 um 21:33 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 19:45:
All of the magic methods are doing like this.
I thought you might say that, but the only thing remotely similar I can
think of is a destructor, which gets called
Johannes Ott wrote on 13/03/2015 09:53:
Am 13.03.2015 um 01:33 schrieb Christoph Becker:
Johannes Ott wrote:
And i although see no DI or Singleton pattern to use here to get the
same functionality, if you want to use like Config::getHostname() and
not like Config::getInstance()-getHostname()
Am 13.03.2015 um 14:36 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Sorry, replying to myself to add a couple of thoughts / clarifications:
Rowan Collins wrote on 13/03/2015 11:53:
Johannes Ott wrote on 13/03/2015 09:53:
Why are in your opinion static members are not allowed to hold more
complexe datastructures
Sorry, replying to myself to add a couple of thoughts / clarifications:
Rowan Collins wrote on 13/03/2015 11:53:
Johannes Ott wrote on 13/03/2015 09:53:
Why are in your opinion static members are not allowed to hold more
complexe datastructures then simple scalars?
Complex data structures,
On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:21, Johannes Ott m...@deroetzi.de wrote:
So now I want to do my first own proposal for a new function in PHP and
I hope doing it right with starting a discussion here first.
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before
On Thursday 12 March 2015 00:10:15 Rowan Collins wrote:
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before the first call to class either static or
non-static to initialize some static properties which are
On Thursday 12 March 2015 00:21:34 Johannes Ott wrote:
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before the first call to class either static or
non-static to initialize some static properties which are needed by the
class.
We are doing this in our
What about inheritance?
I think dynamic class-constructor would make much more sense.
A function which can analyse real class and do initialisation.
class A
{
protected static function __class_construct()
{
echo get_called_class().” class is defined\n;
}
}
Am 12.03.2015 um 05:17 schrieb Levi Morrison:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
So now I want to do my first own proposal for a new function in PHP and
I hope doing it right with starting a discussion here
Hello Johannes,
class Foo {
private static function __static() {
throw new Exception(boom);
}
}
while(true) {
try {
$foo = new Foo;
} catch (Exception ex) {}
}
Would this code be valid?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Am 12.03.2015 um 12:33 schrieb Johannes Ott:
Am 12.03.2015 um 12:16 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Hello Johannes,
class Foo {
private static function __static() {
throw new Exception(boom);
}
}
while(true) {
try {
$foo = new Foo;
} catch (Exception ex) {}
}
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 08:54:
Am 12.03.2015 um 05:17 schrieb Levi Morrison:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
So now I want to do my first own proposal for a new function in PHP and
I hope doing it
Most of these examples are just crying out to be real objects, not
static classes. You might not want to be creating them every time you
use them, but that's what patterns like Singletons and Dependency
Injection are for.
I really disagree to this. Singletons are a typical
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 14:51:
That is nearly like initializing a class constant, but in my opinion a
constant should not have a complex algorithm (For example conditions
or read from filesystem). That should be encapsulated inside a proper
method body.
I agree, but as such, I think
Am 12.03.2015 um 12:40 schrieb Niklas Keller:
How would it behave for the second call? If the first initialize fails due
to some exception, should that static constructor be executed again?
I think there a two different solutions and I do not know which one I
prefer at the moment:
1. No
Am 12.03.2015 17:28 schrieb Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com:
I thought it sounded familiar. Also check the list archive for A modest
proposal: __constructStatic from a month ago. It was rejected then, too.
That proposal was about a completely different issue.
But you are right, it was
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 14:51:
That is nearly like initializing a class constant, but in my opinion a
constant should not have a complex algorithm (For example conditions
or read from filesystem). That should be encapsulated inside a
On 12 Mar 2015, at 19:28, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
I thought it sounded familiar. Also check the list archive for A modest
proposal: __constructStatic from a month ago. It was rejected then, too.
Really, I cannot think of any cases where I want to have a static
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 17:05:
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 14:51:
That is nearly like initializing a class constant, but in my opinion a
constant should not have a complex algorithm (For example conditions
or read from filesystem).
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 19:45:
All of the magic methods are doing like this.
I thought you might say that, but the only thing remotely similar I can
think of is a destructor, which gets called when an object goes out of
scope; the others are all the implementation of, or instead
On 3/12/15 10:57 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 14:51:
That is nearly like initializing a class constant, but in my opinion a
constant should not have a complex algorithm (For example conditions
or read from filesystem). That should be encapsulated inside a proper
Am 12.03.2015 um 18:55 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 17:05:
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 14:51:
That is nearly like initializing a class constant, but in my opinion a
constant should not have a complex algorithm (For
Patrick Schaaf wrote on 12/03/2015 18:40:
Am 12.03.2015 18:56 schrieb Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 17:05:
So doing a null check each time
is a overhead of calculation which can be avoided with this static
Am 12.03.2015 um 20:34 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Patrick Schaaf wrote on 12/03/2015 18:40:
Am 12.03.2015 18:56 schrieb Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
mailto:rowan.coll...@gmail.com:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 17:05:
So doing a null check each time
is a overhead of
Am 12.03.2015 18:56 schrieb Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 17:05:
So doing a null check each time
is a overhead of calculation which can be avoided with this static
constructor pattern.
Presumably the engine would need to perform some implicit
Am 12.03.2015 20:12 schrieb Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com:
Patrick Schaaf wrote:
But that has proven, in the past, a fountain of joy wrt.
placement, with variations needed for APC and opcache, and general
frustration
all around.
Is there a bug report for the problems? OPCache
Patrick Schaaf wrote:
But that has proven, in the past, a fountain of joy wrt.
placement, with variations needed for APC and opcache, and general frustration
all around.
Is there a bug report for the problems? OPCache shouldn't have
side-effects on the code.
cheers
Dan
On 12 March 2015 at
Am 12.03.2015 um 21:33 schrieb Rowan Collins:
Johannes Ott wrote on 12/03/2015 19:45:
All of the magic methods are doing like this.
I thought you might say that, but the only thing remotely similar I can
think of is a destructor, which gets called when an object goes out of
scope; the
Johannes Ott wrote:
And i although see no DI or Singleton pattern to use here to get the
same functionality, if you want to use like Config::getHostname() and
not like Config::getInstance()-getHostname() which is really
unnecessary abstraction level for nothing in my opinion!
It is possible,
Patrick Schaaf wrote on 12/03/2015 08:40:
On Thursday 12 March 2015 00:10:15 Rowan Collins wrote:
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before the first call to class either static or
non-static to
Am 12.03.2015 um 12:16 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Hello Johannes,
class Foo {
private static function __static() {
throw new Exception(boom);
}
}
while(true) {
try {
$foo = new Foo;
} catch (Exception ex) {}
}
Would this code be valid?
Have to think
2015-03-12 12:33 GMT+01:00 Johannes Ott m...@deroetzi.de:
Am 12.03.2015 um 12:16 schrieb Crypto Compress:
Hello Johannes,
class Foo {
private static function __static() {
throw new Exception(boom);
}
}
while(true) {
try {
$foo = new Foo;
}
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
So now I want to do my first own proposal for a new function in PHP and
I hope doing it right with starting a discussion here first.
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before the first call to class
Am 12.03.2015 um 00:30 schrieb Marco Pivetta:
Hey Johannes,
Why can't this be done at autoloading time?
In my opinion this should not be done on autoloading time, but as a own
method inside the class for two reasons.
1. Not every class is loaded with autoload-functions, but although
directly
On 12 March 2015 at 00:21, Johannes Ott m...@deroetzi.de wrote:
The purpose of this suggestion is to introduce a static constructor,
which is called before the first call to class either static or
non-static to initialize some static properties which are needed by the
class.
Hey Johannes,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/03/2015 23:21, Johannes Ott wrote:
So now I want to do my first own proposal for a new function in PHP and
I hope doing it right with starting a discussion here first.
The purpose of this suggestion is to
52 matches
Mail list logo
