Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Hi! > $counts[$item] ?? $counts[$item] = 1 ?? $counts[$item]++; This looks completely unreadable and I do not think it works: https://3v4l.org/PlAHH Seems to leave $counts as 1 always. But even if it didn't, I would never pass that on code review - it is very hard to understand what's going on

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

On 8 January 2016 at 18:21, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > This looks completely unreadable and I do not think it works: > https://3v4l.org/PlAHH > Seems to leave $counts as 1 always. But even if it didn't, I would never > pass that on code review - it is very hard to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Ryan Pallas wrote on 08/01/2016 18:29: I agree with Dan on this one. Trying to use an invalid type as a key should produce something. Your argument that its garbage and you don't care may be valid for a specific use case, but it may also be a bug in another case But that has nothing to do

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

On 8 January 2016 at 16:51, Rowan Collins wrote: > I detect sarcasm here, and would like to hear a non-sarcastic version of > your point. You're suggesting that we solve a problem in a way that pretty much every other attempt to do has failed. I'm not going to be able

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield wrote: > > On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: >>> >>> Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to >>> make fair

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:18 PM > To: Sara Golemon > Cc: Zeev Suraski ; Anthony Ferrara > ; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft]

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > For those still in doubts, ask users why they don't post to the list. > Why they don't contribute. Our reputation of agressivity (and I take the > blame on that too) did not do us any good and still do not. I think we have here very basic difference in definition. Being aggressive and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Dan Ackroyd wrote on 08/01/2016 18:36: Apologies, it should be: $counts[$item] = ($counts[$item] ?? 0) + 1; Which both works, and to me, is more readable than the @ version As with the file-manipulation functions, I think you're focussing too much on the specific example and not on the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: > > > > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust > to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > $counts[$item] ?? $counts[$item] = 1 ?? $counts[$item]++; > > This looks completely unreadable and I do not think it works: > https://3v4l.org/PlAHH > Seems to leave $counts as 1 always. But even if it

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas wrote: > > > > I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately > after one happens. > > (/me ponders) > > That leads to an

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: p...@golemon.com [mailto:p...@golemon.com] On Behalf Of Sara > Golemon > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:46 PM > To: Stanislav Malyshev > Cc: François Laupretre ; Anthony Ferrara > ;

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > No. I will be willing to cut scope overall to cut how much it tackles > in the first swing, but I strongly believe that there needs to be some > sort of non-public resolution process defined. I agree, non-public CRT as part of the proposal seems fine. The punitive action is a bit more

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:51, Ryan Pallas wrote: > > I would prefer to see the team picked for the next occurence immediately > after one happens. (/me ponders) That leads to an interesting hypothetical situation: if you know in advance that there's a particular team in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Hi! > when doing something defined as invalid will be hard. If you don't want > to count garbage, then you should use if() > > if (!is_garbage($key)) @$count[$key]++; And if you want to check, just do: if (is_garbage($key)) { throw Exception("Garbage!"); } Except in this case you know what's

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: Paul M. Jones [mailto:pmjone...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:28 PM > To: Larry Garfield > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:07, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Paul M. Jones [mailto:pmjone...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:28 PM >> To: Larry Garfield >> Cc: internals@lists.php.net >> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV]

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield wrote: On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield wrote: > > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: >>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield wrote: >>> >>> On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 13:50, Larry Garfield wrote: > > > > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > >>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry Garfield > wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > I am referring to multiple comments here of actual harassment or bad > behavior (I described what it is) and agressivity. I still do not have any example of "actual harassment" that happened anywhere on community resources. Even examples of bad behavior that got people banned weren't

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:03 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > For those still in doubts, ask users why they don't post to the list. > > Why they don't contribute. Our reputation of agressivity (and I take the > > blame on that too) did not do us any good and still do not.

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> -Original Message- > From: Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 9:51 PM > To: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct > > On 1/8/16 12:31 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 12:16, Larry

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

I note that after much hue and cry, and many arguments, I still do not know what color this bikeshed will be. I feel I have been informed of the many examples of problems with colors, cultural relevance of specific hues, details of paint techniques, anecdotes of past experiences with varying

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/8/16 11:28 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote: On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are fair) that don't fall too far

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Dan Ackroyd wrote on 08/01/2016 18:44: You're suggesting that we solve a problem in a way that pretty much every other attempt to do has failed. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting anything of the sort. it's only by encountering all of the small problems that you can

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > This is exactly what slightly annoys me to be honest. It exactly why > we need a private group to deal with such events, even rare, or even > if they will never ever happen again. > > Despite numerous people saying that it happens, including me. You > still say, heh, that's some vague

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 1:25 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > This is exactly what slightly annoys me to be honest. It exactly why > > we need a private group to deal with such events, even rare, or even > > if they will never ever happen again. > > > > Despite numerous

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > One problem we discuss this using two different ends. I mainly focus on > providing tools to ensure we have a safe context. While you seem to > ensure that we do not mistakes, do not ban innocent or apply censorship > inadvertently. If you looks at creating safe context without worrying

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:27 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > One problem we discuss this using two different ends. I mainly focus on > > providing tools to ensure we have a safe context. While you seem to > > ensure that we do not mistakes, do not ban innocent or apply

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > What I said is that these are two different points and should be > discussed separately. Yes, it will be part of the RFc but talking many > points at the same time is impossible. No, I don't think it's two different points, at least as far as punitive functions go. If we omit the punitive

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:39 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > What I said is that these are two different points and should be > > discussed separately. Yes, it will be part of the RFc but talking many > > points at the same time is impossible. > > No, I don't think it's

[PHP-DEV] Anonymous voting on wiki

Hi! Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 The results still recorded per user, but everybody can see just their own vote (for logged in users) and total

Re: [PHP-DEV] Anonymous voting on wiki

On Jan 9, 2016 2:55 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, > I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > The results still recorded

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: >> I am referring to multiple comments here of actual harassment or bad >> behavior (I described what it is) and agressivity. > > I still do not have any example of "actual harassment" that happened > anywhere on

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] On-Demand Name Mangling

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: I still don't like this part: > > > > As written, one can't: the engine emits the error as soon as it mangles > a variable, at most one time per startup. While that's annoying, it's also > informative: someone's hitting

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi Anthony, Presented for your consideration... PHP Contributor Etiquette : PHP Contributor Etiquette PHP exists because programmers, admins, and writers from all over the world volunteer their time and talent. Through

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] OpenSSL AEAD support

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jakub Zelenka wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Jakub Zelenka wrote:

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] On-Demand Name Mangling

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Bishop Bettini wrote: > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rowan Collins > wrote: > >> On 02/01/2016 03:09, Bishop Bettini wrote: >> >>> But, even without a setting, there's an escape hatch: userland can >>> polyfill >>> the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Sara, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC rather >> than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message. Having it in

[PHP-DEV] NEUTRAL Benchmark Results for PHP Master 2016-01-08

Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-01-08 06:29:54+02:00 commit: bb357e0 previous commit:536f583 revision date: 2016-01-07 23:49:42+01:00 environment:Haswell-EP cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping 2, LLC 45 MB

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Class Friendship

On 7 January 2016 at 20:25, Dustin Wheeler wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have drafted an RFC that describes a proposal to add this feature to > the language. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/friend-classes Hi Dustin, I try to avoid sounding too negative when people come up with

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Dan Ackroyd wrote on 06/01/2016 17:12: Work on a plan on how to migrate all internal errors/warnings to individual exceptions. The current way of using set_error_handler to convert warnings/errors into generic exceptions isn't good enough. Again, you're focussing exclusively on that sub-set of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Class Friendship

Hi Dan, On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > > Hi Dustin, > > I try to avoid sounding too negative when people come up with ideas > that I might not agree with. HoweverI feel obliged to give honest > feedback earlier rather than later; I can't see any

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Keith, On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey wrote: > On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: >> >> On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote: Why not? The harassment has been nullified. >>> >>> I agree with your position on most of this, Paul.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Sara Golemon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > Having a CoC which is wider in scope and ratified by a voted RFC > > rather than an email on some mailing list sends a strong message. > > Having it in our contributor guidelines

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conflict mediation standpoint On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:55 AM Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Keith, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey > wrote: > > On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: > > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust to > make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with, but that are fair) > that don't fall too far into "thought policing", in *any*

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

Dan Ackroyd wrote on 08/01/2016 16:26: On 8 January 2016 at 15:48, Rowan Collins wrote: It doesn't do anything to help Stas's example for instance: @$counts[$item]++; I think that that code is bogus since the release of PHP 7, which made it trivial to not use the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > I think many do agree. If you look at this 225+ reply thread, the vast > majority of karma holding people have not responded (even many who > frequent this list). A few (5+) of them have reached out to me > personally to say that they are explicitly staying out of this > discussion because

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/8/16 1:20 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: Hi! And yes, I am aware that a large part of the concern is the definition of "malicious jackass who hurts people" and "hostile, insulting storm". Not only that. But that even if we have the definition, nobody walks around with a convenient label

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers > have received by making this proposal. I don't feel comfortable making > any of those attacks public (drawing more attention to them).

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:49 AM Anthony Ferrara wrote: > Kevin, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Simply look at the level of

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 12:02 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > And it may be mean "I fear being > harassed or physically threatened by opponent" - and if so, this fear > doesn't look exactly substantiated, since that never happened so far, at > least on the list, so I wonder how we

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Anthony, > On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > Keith, > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, D Keith Casey > wrote: >> >> - If so, do his personal attacks using sexualized terms constitute a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Kevin, On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote: >> >> >> Simply look at the level of attacks that me and a few other committers >> have received by making this proposal. I don't feel

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 22:08, Brian Moon wrote: > >> Why not? The harassment has been nullified. > > I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and > thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It > becomes an arms race to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecation of the Error Control Operator (@ symbol)

On 8 January 2016 at 15:48, Rowan Collins wrote: > > It doesn't do anything to help Stas's example for instance: > > @$counts[$item]++; I think that that code is bogus since the release of PHP 7, which made it trivial to not use the error suppression for this case, while

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Hi! > And then Phil Sturgeon else used a sexualized term to insult Paul to his > ~16k followers but didn't name him: https://archive.is/oeekT I think that is a clear example of something that would be prohibited by CoC. We do not need to split hairs here about what each exact word means, it is

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 09:39, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> Think about that. People who are long standing members of this >> community and project do not feel that they can safely respond to this >> very thread. Think of the irony there. > > For what it’s worth, I’ve had 2 people

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 10:53, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > The fact that many in this thread are suggesting that "it didn't happen on > list, so we shouldn't care" is extremely narrow. To be clear, my position is not "we shouldn't care". For the record: care all you like,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:28 PM Paul M. Jones wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 23:52, Larry Garfield wrote: > > > > Do you think we can find 5 people in the PHP community that we can trust > to make fair decisions (NOT that we would always agree with,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Warn about invalid strings in arithmetic

Hi François, François Laupretre wrote: I would suggest we still accept leading and trailing blanks without E_NOTICE. That's easy to implement (leading blanks are already accepted and adding non-blank trailing char detection is trivial) and would greatly reduce BC breaks. Leading whitespace is

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On 1/7/16 11:52 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: On 01/07/2016 10:08 PM, Brian Moon wrote: Why not? The harassment has been nullified. I agree with your position on most of this, Paul. However, free email, and thus, Twitter and other social media accounts are nearly unlimited. It becomes an arms race

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> We've seen time and time again that the court of public opinion is a > horrific > judge for these style issues. This sentence has me worried in several different ways. Would you care to provide some references how the court of public opinion was a horrific judge for these style issues?