Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposing inclusion of PCS in the 7.2 core distribution

Le 05/06/2017 à 19:46, François Laupretre a écrit : > Hi, > > PCS provides a fast and easy mechanism to mix C and PHP code in PHP > extensions (more about PCS at http://pcs.tekwire.net). Thanks to the PHP > 7 performance improvement and the inclusion of opcache in the core, a > lot of existing

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

Le 30/05/2017 à 06:27, Sara Golemon a écrit : > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release-md5-deprecation > > Primary discussion points: Deprecate or Remove? Deprecate for how long? > +1 for dropping md5 checksums for 7.2 releases And I don't think adding sha256 for old releases (which are unsecure)

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

> > On 6 Jun 2017, at 03:18, Björn Larsson wrote: > > Den 2017-06-05 kl. 21:23, skrev Ryan Pallas: > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: >> >>> On 6/5/2017 9:03 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote: However, ($obj) -> $var is valid

[PHP-DEV] NEUTRAL Benchmark Results for PHP Master 2017-06-04

Results for project PHP master, build date 2017-06-04 19:23:38-07:00 commit: 8baf12b previous commit:a86c87d revision date: 2017-06-04 18:22:02+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]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

Den 2017-06-05 kl. 21:23, skrev Ryan Pallas: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: On 6/5/2017 9:03 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote: However, ($obj) -> $var is valid variable property syntax. Gosh, we really have support for everything. :D That one is even very

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 05/06/2017 20:09, Fleshgrinder wrote: How about ~> which I at least cannot think of any place it is used at all. ~ in binary negation and the only place we use it (I checked the language parser this time to make sure). We've come full circle: that was actually the syntax proposed in Bob

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: >> That's not a terrible idea. I'll script something up to download, >> verify gpg if it's available (verify existing m5 if it's not), and >> generate a sha256 from it resulting in a diff to >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposing inclusion of PCS in the 7.2 core distribution

On 6/5/2017 7:46 PM, François Laupretre wrote: > So, please give me your thoughts. Suggestions of potential candidates to > be rewritten from C to PHP are welcome too. > > Regards > > François > Hi François! I really, really like this. It would allow us to write most of the stuff in PHP,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: > On 6/5/2017 9:03 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote: > > However, ($obj) -> $var is valid variable property syntax. > > > > Gosh, we really have support for everything. :D That one is even very > important for stuff like `(new

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 6/5/2017 9:03 PM, Ryan Pallas wrote: > However, ($obj) -> $var is valid variable property syntax. > Gosh, we really have support for everything. :D That one is even very important for stuff like `(new A)->f()`. How about ~> which I at least cannot think of any place it is used at all. ~ in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposing inclusion of PCS in the 7.2 core distribution

Hi François 2017-06-05 19:46 GMT+02:00 François Laupretre : > Hi, > > PCS provides a fast and easy mechanism to mix C and PHP code in PHP > extensions (more about PCS at http://pcs.tekwire.net). Thanks to the PHP 7 > performance improvement and the inclusion of opcache in

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On Jun 5, 2017 12:53 PM, "Fleshgrinder" wrote: On 6/5/2017 8:36 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Ugh, you're right, that's totally unreadable... the => is far too ambiguous > with array syntax, I agree. > > How about just a thin arrow? > > (params) -> expr > > If the parens

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Doxygen

Hey Jefferson! On 6/5/2017 8:40 PM, Jefferson Gonzalez wrote: > First, thanks for taking the initiative to do this! > :) On 6/5/2017 8:40 PM, Jefferson Gonzalez wrote: > Second, the rfc doesn't touch the ability of grouping that doxygen > provides which could be really useful in order to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

> That's not a terrible idea. I'll script something up to download, > verify gpg if it's available (verify existing m5 if it's not), and > generate a sha256 from it resulting in a diff to > web-php/include/releases.inc . Can do that irrespective of whether or > not we stop adding md5s. We also

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 6/5/2017 8:36 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Ugh, you're right, that's totally unreadable... the => is far too ambiguous > with array syntax, I agree. > > How about just a thin arrow? > > (params) -> expr > > If the parens around params were required, it's not ambiguous with the > trailing

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Doxygen

On 06/01/2017 03:04 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: Hey guys! Just finished the very brief Doxygen RFC. Please let me know if you require more information in it, I feel that it is sufficient as is, since documenting is not rocket science (writing useful documentation definitely is, but we cannot vote

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

Ugh, you're right, that's totally unreadable... the => is far too ambiguous with array syntax, I agree. How about just a thin arrow? (params) -> expr If the parens around params were required, it's not ambiguous with the trailing -- operator, is it? $foo->bar(($baz) -> $baz + 1);

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Documentation (Doxygen)

Am 05.06.2017 um 20:16 schrieb Jefferson Gonzalez: I do not remember all the details, since this was 5 years ago as I wrote before, but what I do remember is some of the core developers not wanting to saturate the core code with comments, and that the best documentation was reading the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Documentation (Doxygen)

On 05/30/2017 02:48 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote: Nice to see that I'm not the only who thinks that proper documentation is a good thing. I already mentioned that it is not super important to me personally to actually generate the docs from the code base. However, there is also nothing bad about doing

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

Den 2017-06-05 kl. 19:55, skrev Rowan Collins: On 5 June 2017 18:17:06 BST, Fleshgrinder wrote: Could someone explain me again what the problem with the simple fat-arrow and normal parenthesis is? Cannot find it anymore (too many messages in too many thread I guess). I

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 6/5/2017 7:55 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > I think it's not just a case of implementation problems, it's actually > ambiguous with current syntax: > > $foo = array( ($x) => 42 ); > > Sure, those inner brackets are redundant, so it's not likely to break much > actual code, but it's kind of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 5 June 2017 18:17:06 BST, Fleshgrinder wrote: >Could someone explain me again what the problem with the simple >fat-arrow and normal parenthesis is? Cannot find it anymore (too many >messages in too many thread I guess). I would guess that it has to do >with the

[PHP-DEV] Proposing inclusion of PCS in the 7.2 core distribution

Hi, PCS provides a fast and easy mechanism to mix C and PHP code in PHP extensions (more about PCS at http://pcs.tekwire.net). Thanks to the PHP 7 performance improvement and the inclusion of opcache in the core, a lot of existing non-performance-critical extension code may now be converted

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 6/5/2017 6:17 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > 3 > 4 > 1. > > 2 is not even worth considering and I'd almost prefer not having arrow > functions if their syntax is going to be that self-defeating. > > I also see no reason to include both by-value and by-reference binding > Arrow functions are for

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 06/05/2017 09:19 AM, Rasmus Schultz wrote: Of the proposed options, I'd prefer the double fat-arrow ==> However, I remain of the opinion that all of those syntaxes are work-arounds to ambiguity concerns for cases that likely don't actually occur in real-world codebases. I don't understand

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Niklas Keller wrote: > 2017-06-05 16:42 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : >> >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Sara Golemon wrote: >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release-md5-deprecation >> > >> > Primary discussion

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

2017-06-05 16:42 GMT+02:00 Sara Golemon : > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Sara Golemon wrote: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release-md5-deprecation > > > > Primary discussion points: Deprecate or Remove? Deprecate for how long? > > > No response from my post

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Release Process] Deprecate/Remove MD5 checksums

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Sara Golemon wrote: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/release-md5-deprecation > > Primary discussion points: Deprecate or Remove? Deprecate for how long? > No response from my post last week, bumping at a different time of day to get response. -Sara

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

Of the proposed options, I'd prefer the double fat-arrow ==> However, I remain of the opinion that all of those syntaxes are work-arounds to ambiguity concerns for cases that likely don't actually occur in real-world codebases. I don't understand the motivation to design or optimize based on

Re: [PHP-DEV] Class Naming in Core

On 5 June 2017 09:14:47 BST, Tony Marston wrote: >Seriously, can you explain in words of one syllable the precise >benefits of >such a consistency? I will try: - When we write code, we need to know how to spell the names of things. If the things all have names that

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

Den 2017-06-01 kl. 18:58, skrev Theodore Brown: On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Levi Morrison wrote: Based on the discussion there are a few different syntax choices people liked. Overall it's a feature that people seem to want but everyone seems to prefer a different syntax choice. 1.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Class Naming in Core

Am 05.06.2017 um 10:14 schrieb Tony Marston: wrote in message news:3cfc0130-e530-64ed-36e8-372b04481...@rhsoft.net... Am 04.06.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Tony Marston: If there was never a standard to begin with then there should be proper justification for introducing one now, and I'm afraid

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Improved SSL / TLS constants

2017-06-04 11:22 GMT+02:00 Niklas Keller : > 2017-05-29 22:29 GMT+02:00 Anatol Belski : > >> Hi Niklas, >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Niklas Keller [mailto:m...@kelunik.com] >> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:14 PM >> > To: Anatol Belski

Re: [PHP-DEV] Class Naming in Core

wrote in message news:3cfc0130-e530-64ed-36e8-372b04481...@rhsoft.net... Am 04.06.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Tony Marston: If there was never a standard to begin with then there should be proper justification for introducing one now, and I'm afraid that "to be consistent" is not a valid