hi Stas, Jakub,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Recently bug 47358 came to my attention, and there's something strange
with it. It is fixed only for 5.6, not listed in NEWS for even that
version, but the log contains these:
commit
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple
'Cause this code is silly (even if it had case blocks), but we allow it:
switch ($expr) {
default:
notExecuted();
break;
default:
executed();
}
--
PHP
Just saw the RFC today so I hadn't been able to comment on it until now..
If we are getting rid of it wouldn't it be better to emit an E_DEPRECATED
per
https://github.com/imnotjames/php-src/compare/switch.default.multiple-deprecated
and then remove it in the next major release?
This has been
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple
'Cause this code is silly (even if it had case blocks), but we allow it:
switch ($expr) {
default:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple
'Cause this code is
On 13/08/14 09:48, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I wanted to say that
and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a BC
break in a minor version
Reading between the lines this does seem to be more a problem for HHVM
which has not copied the current operation properly. The
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
I've just been looking back at the history of this previous conversation...
http://marc.info/?l=php-internalsm=132673741606531w=2
as a mockist tester I'd really REALLY like to see this be possible but I
can
Hi!
On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a BC
break (albeit this is the better kind of BC: probably doesn't effect too
many people, and they will be clearly notified about the error at compile
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
I could see
where people would use it - there are reasons to, even if they are poor in
choice to do so.
How, exactly, could there ever be a use for having multiple default: sections
and ignoring all but one? This “feature”
On 13 Aug 2014, at 10:52, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
I could see
where people would use it - there are reasons to, even if they are poor in
choice to do so.
How, exactly, could there ever be a use for having
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
sorry to jump in this late, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to only
reject the multiple default blocks but keep the ability to have the same
case multiple times:
http://3v4l.org/eZdPU
Multiple cases with the same value are a lot harder to prevent
On 13 August 2014 10:56, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 13 Aug 2014, at 10:52, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
I could see
where people would use it - there are reasons to, even if they are
poor in
On 13 Aug 2014, at 11:24, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 August 2014 10:56, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
However, I tend to think that we should simply target php7 for any of
these fixes. No need of endless arguing and keeps everyone happy.
I’d rather we fix
From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:43 AM
Hi!
On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a BC
break (albeit this is the better kind of BC: probably doesn't
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Hi!
On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a
BC
break (albeit this is the better kind of BC: probably doesn't effect too
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
sorry to jump in this late, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to
only
reject the multiple default blocks but keep the ability to have the same
case multiple times:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Hi!
On 13 Aug 2014, at 08:47, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
and I also think that this isn't an important enough issue to warrant a
BC
break
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
agree, and I thought about mentioning that, but I left that out,
because I'm not proposing to remove that ability (and I see more
use-cases for that as mentioned in my previous email) but stating that
this patch would make an arbitrary distinction between
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
agree, and I thought about mentioning that, but I left that out, because
I'm not proposing to remove that ability (and I see more use-cases for that
as mentioned in my previous
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
agree, and I thought about mentioning that, but I left that out, because
I'm not proposing to remove
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
not sure what do you mean here, multiple default cases can be reached the
same way as any other duplicated case branch(as shown in my snippet in the
mail you replied to).
If you're talking about http://3v4l.org/eZdPU then those duplicates are
definitely
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
Btw. I've added a comment to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=67757 as
I've found some really weird behavior for multiple defaults and I
think that it would be better to try to figure out and fix why do we
pick the last default in the problematic snippet
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
not sure what do you mean here, multiple default cases can be reached the
same way as any other duplicated case branch(as shown in my snippet in the
mail you replied to).
If
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
Btw. I've added a comment to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=67757 as
I've found some really weird behavior for multiple defaults and I think
that it would be better to try to
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
It is not selecting the first default, it just never needs to look
for a default, because it has already found a matching case label.
yes, and it continues the execution from the first matching case and
correctly evaluates the following defaults,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
It is not selecting the first default, it just never needs to look
for a default, because it has already found a matching case label.
yes, and it continues the
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
I think you misunderstood that part, I was thinking about a state
machine like this:
1. function doStuff(){
2. switch($state){
3. case OPENDOOR:
4. if(!opendoor()){
5. break;
6. }
7. $state = SITDOWN;
8. case SITDOWN:
9. if(!sitdown()){
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 13/08/2014):
I think you misunderstood that part, I was thinking about a state machine
like this:
1. function doStuff(){
2. switch($state){
3. case OPENDOOR:
4. if(!opendoor()){
5.
Even if it is fall through that is causing the behavior it still is a
syntax that no longer will be considered valid in a minor release - and
seemingly in a point release as well if everyone had their way here. [:
Not that I consider code likehttp://3v4l.org/ http://3v4l.org/mtG4KmtG4K
Hi
2014-08-13 13:02 GMT+02:00 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
agree, and I thought about mentioning that, but I left that out, because
I'm not proposing to remove that ability (and I see more use-cases for that
as mentioned in my previous email) but stating that this patch would make
an
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
Hi
2014-08-13 13:02 GMT+02:00 Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
agree, and I thought about mentioning that, but I left that out, because
I'm not proposing to remove that ability (and I see more use-cases for
that
I woke up to this thread, and at first I thought:
Oh, some actual discussion, maybe we should stop the vote after all
and give it some time...
One or two minor points here...
And there's the bike shed.
For my own sanity, I'm going to leave this to the people who care
about the import things like
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
I woke up to this thread, and at first I thought:
Oh, some actual discussion, maybe we should stop the vote after all
and give it some time...
One or two minor points here...
And there's the bike shed.
For my own sanity,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
My thoughts on the topic? I think we're in danger of letting process get
in our way here. It's a bug fix which IMHO should even be thrown into 5.6
(this is a bug fix!). Going through the RFC process, being forced to
Le 06/08/2014 14:36, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
After speaking with other members of AFUP (French user-group) about this
RFC, here's a short summary of our thoughts:
The idea of
When is this planned to go through voting process?
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Hi!
On 2 Aug 2014, at 21:44, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you think this isn't a good idea? I think it would be a nice way
to prototype language features
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
When is this planned to go through voting process?
Before voting I'd like to have some opinions on the behavioral differences
the proposal introduces. In particular I'd like to know whether we are okay
Hi,
I'd personally find it horrible if $foo[$i] = $bar[$i++]; is executed
right-to-left, but given that your examples are a bit weird, I'm not sure
if mine is affected. Is it?
Cheers,
Andrey.
On Aug 13, 2014 10:05 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM,
On 2014-08-12, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 12 Aug 2014, at 17:53, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
Voting is open: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple#vote
I’m all for this, but the *minimum*
I'm not entirely sure that a backwards compatibility break in a minor
release would be considered non-controversial.
While this change is pretty trivial, both technically and
syntactically, I'm unsure why there even is an RFC process in place if
it's going to be ignored because it's too much
On 6 August 2014 12:32, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but if we don't version the
spec, then when we introduce BC breaks or simply new features in a new
version which is in turn get's added to the spec, that would make the older
php
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Drew Paroski drewparo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2014 12:32, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but if we don't version the
spec, then when we introduce BC breaks or simply new features in a new
Hi!
And this, which is completely undetectable at parse time:
$bar = 30;
// ... arbitrary amount of code
switch ( $foo ) {
case $bar:
case 30:
}
That's not all. You can also do:
switch (true) {
case foo($bar):
...
case baz($quz, $qux):
...
}
and this is a completely
Hi,
I'm trying to print error messages in zend, so I add a function in
zend_API.{h,c}
Then I got and error:
/Zend/zend_API.c:3226: undefined reference to `php_error_docref
So, what's the appropriate function to use?
--
Best Regards,
Aaron Lewis - PGP: 0x13714D33 - http://pgp.mit.edu/
Finger
On 14 Aug 2014, at 03:13, Aaron Lewis the.warl0ck.1...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to print error messages in zend, so I add a function in
zend_API.{h,c}
Then I got and error:
/Zend/zend_API.c:3226: undefined reference to `php_error_docref
So, what's the appropriate function to use?
45 matches
Mail list logo
