Le 10/05/2011 07:46, Lester Caine a écrit :
The existing tools had been working well, but nowadays things are simply
becoming a mess ...
I agree.
Why not fixing the several hundreds of bugs in PHP before just even thinking
about adding new features ???
I much respect people using my
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations.
And the argument
that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash either since once it has been
pushed in, some of
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton chadful...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations.
And the argument
that 'You don't
Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fultonchadful...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
lars.schu...@toolpark.com wrote:
What is the goal of having Annotations embedded in PHP? To nail down a
common syntax? To provide an interface for meta-information on a class?
I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and
Am 10.05.2011 10:10, schrieb Jordi Boggiano:
I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and
performance of the parsing. At the moment everyone has to cache the
stuff because hitting the tokenizer every time is quite expensive.
If implemented within PHP the existing opcode-caches
On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could
anyone please explain the advantages of having passive annotations over
active PHP Code.
I think your example shows very well
Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
use for this feature, but also the users of
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.netwrote:
Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
frameworks use them (meaning
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
That is how open source works.
Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
feature is useful. Moreover, you provided tests that reflected the
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.netwrote:
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
That is how open source works.
Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think
On 10 May 2011 15:25, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
That is how open source works.
Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
feature
On 10 May 2011, at 12:04, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
performance problems, playing the bloated card, etc.), but they were
overwhelmed by the positive feedback and the buzz about what can be further
improved, etc.
it seems that annotations lacked the critical mass when it was proposed. :(
From my
Hello Internals!
Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
development and feature requests and the politics going on in
internals.
Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it is a need to
take a break from large feature developing, witch takes a lot of time
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could
anyone please explain the advantages of having
Martin Scotta
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Lars Schultz lars.schu...@toolpark.comwrote:
Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fultonchadful...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk
wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello Internals!
Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
development and feature requests and the politics going on in
internals.
Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it
Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta:
The editor argument is out of place
do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE
supports?
At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this
feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is already there,
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:13:32 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
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
Am 10.05.2011 14:47, schrieb Martin Scotta:
Annotated code integrates best with library/frameworks without the need to
extends or implements.
Without annotation you will need to extend some class or to implement some
interface. That means more code to write, more chances to shoot you foot.
Umm.
Hi,
On 2011.05.10. 15:13, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
...
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
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com wrote:
I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think. And
I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process itself.
The actual proposal process is always the same:
1. Someone proposes a
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:14 +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com
wrote:
I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think.
And
I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process
itself.
The actual
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I also have a personal problem with code that needs to introspect on
every web request in order to run. But that is likely because I am old
and gray and used to stare sceptically at the assembly output of the
first C compilers to see if I could come up with an alternative
2011/5/10 Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu:
The Tainted Variable RFC - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint - personally
I would prefer that feature right now over any new feature, because it
gives the ability to check for insecure variable handling and make
sure you don't miss something. A major
Hi,
You all think that mapping something can always be abstracted into a
few lines like the one you presented.
Well, in certain cases your idea is valid. I'd then point you an
Entity mapping of Doctrine 2 with and without Annotations, so you can
imagine how much it can abstract:
With Doctrine
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
With Doctrine Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885284
With my proposal:http://pastie.org/1885294
Without Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885252
Is that still simple?
But exactly what is wrong with the first one. It does not require getting a book
out to work out
On Tue May 10 11:07 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not putting traits support inclusion on risk. I'm a string +1 to
it.
All I want is that you stop giving stupid arguments to be against the
patch instead of giving *real* relevant arguments.
Complexity:
Lars Schultz wrote:
Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta:
The editor argument is out of place
do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE
supports?
At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this
feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is
On Mon May 9 07:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Andi,
Sorry, but I mentioned on other thread that RFC is outdated.
I just finished an update to it bringing to recent implementation. The
idea is to get the big picture here, I may have left from previous
RFC, but if I did that,
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
--0016e657b06a1ac32a04a2e91661
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net
wrote:
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
That is how open source works.
Traits
On 2011-05-10, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
--0016e6db295ac0d29504a2e4229c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks pen...@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding
more feature bloat into the language that is
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Guilherme often raises ZF's server classes as poster children for why
annotations support is needed. However, I'd like to note that I don't
feel this way at all. In fact, annotations support would create_more_
work for us. Why? Because now we'd need both our
Hi!
Well, there is the impact, but seriously, do that many people will use
it in production? I certainly will not, but on the DEV and on my local
development machine it will be enabled period.
Everybody would be using that in production. Production is where the
danger is, nobody would break
Hi Matthew,
There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks:
- Code with and without comments should act the same.
Also, no matter if it's inside docblocks or not, we'd still have a new
syntax. No matter what you do. Even a key = value is a new syntax.
But it seems that
On May 10, 2011, at 18:57, Matthew Weier O'Phinney weierophin...@php.net
wrote:
With annotations, my main issue, which I voiced early (and others did as
well), is that we can already do much of what the RFC proposes by
parsing annotations in docblocks. In fact, adding the support
Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
Just because developers are using annotations does not necessarily mean
we need a new syntax.
Exactly the point I tried to make earlier -- just more to the point.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal
Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
I think that's reason enough to pan the feature for 5.4.
Agreed.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals -
On 2011-05-10, guilhermebla...@gmail.com guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks:
- Code with and without comments should act the same.
Why?
Would you expect phpDocumentor to work without docblocks? No.
Would you expect to
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
already, and phpeclipse simply picks it up and runs
Drak wrote:
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
already, and phpeclipse simply picks
On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and
May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
purposes.
+1, FWIW.
So, basically, we're in a situation where there's no consensus on
whether the feature is needed or what the approach should be, and
people pointing fingers
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just
Christopher Jones wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and even
current technology
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson m...@rile.ca wrote:
May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
purposes.
+1, FWIW.
extending the Reflection::getDocComment to support retrieving the docblock
comment as
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Christopher Jones wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
code
Hi,
I would like to ask if the following backtrace contains enough
information to identify the bug ? Perhaps someone may identify from the
backtrace a PHP function/code that causes the segfault and I am able to
provide more info in a bug report ?
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
--bcaec51a7af89cba6304a2f01d01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson m...@rile.ca wrote:
May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
A native docblock annotation parser would much
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
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
Regards,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, dukeofgaming dukeofgam...@gmail.com
bump
is this done?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Denis,
I started reviewing the patch, but unfortunately things at work get a bit
hectic so haven't made too much progress ;(
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Denis Gasparin
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
I'll keep the old one for history purposes. It seems that none from
core php devs
On 10 May 2011 21:42, Matthew Weier O'Phinney weierophin...@php.net wrote:
Annotations cannot be considered bloat because are being used
increasingly everywhere that is a clear indication that they are
required as part of the PHP core as much as many of the Spl classes.
It should be clear by
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and
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, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
different
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 05/10/2011 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
I'll keep the old one for
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the
opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at
all.
It's unrelated to this thread but, what is the status of merging APC
into the
On 05/10/2011 12:49 PM, Drak wrote:
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorfras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the
opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at
all.
It's unrelated to this thread but, what
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and
On 05/10/2011 12:37 PM, Drak wrote:
PS - sorry to say this but from the other thread, all this talk of
ecosystems is quite strange and full of FUD. The PHP eco-system
depends on PHP and exists only because of PHP, not the other way
round. If PHP adds a new syntax or new functions, the IDEs
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment.
Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view that
we simply do not agree on IF annotation should be implemented. I'm a lot more
comfortable with something that works WITH what we
Am 10.05.2011 17:07, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
Is that still simple?
You bloated the php example unnecessarily. This contains the same
information as your Annotations example, which to me, is very similar.
http://pastie.org/1886774
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Not trying to be harsh, but I'm not bloating my PHP example.
That's the actual way Doctrine supports Metadata information. I can explain why.
Conceptually, an architectural design of an entity should not know
anything about its persistence information.
By that means, we cannot for example
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:21 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
creating an official EBNF would solve this problem, among others as well.
http://marc.info/?l=php-internalsm=129387252319019
patches welcome ;)
A formal syntax description might help with highligting, not with all
assisting features an
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:27 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I find it funny that you, Sebastian and others who are supporting docblocks
over annotations didn't found the time to do it, but you always bring this
up.
http://pecl.php.net/package/docblock exists. I never used it, but either
it is
hello everyone!
I'm trying to gain some speed by moving a function from PHP legacy
code to C and making an extension. I'm trying to call *lynx* from the
command line since their C api isn't something soo nice likely to use
it as any other libXX
Currently in PHP I'm doing a system call by using
On 05/10/2011 08:42 PM, Gabriel Sosa wrote:
hello everyone!
I'm trying to gain some speed by moving a function from PHP legacy
code to C and making an extension. I'm trying to call *lynx* from the
command line since their C api isn't something soo nice likely to use
it as any other libXX
If
I'm basically using lynx to convert some html into plain text
basically replicating the following command:
*lynx -pseudo_inlines=off -hiddenlinks=merge -reload -cache=0 -notitle
-force_html -dump -nocolor -stdin*
I've been looking but I didn't find any other library capable to do
the same with
On May 10, 2011, at 21:01, Gabriel Sosa sosagabr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm basically using lynx to convert some html into plain text
basically replicating the following command:
*lynx -pseudo_inlines=off -hiddenlinks=merge -reload -cache=0 -notitle
-force_html -dump -nocolor -stdin*
I've
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 because it is missing'
is simply that I've already been doing it for years - just
72 matches
Mail list logo
