Hi Ilija,
Den 2020-08-10 kl. 17:06, skrev Ilija Tovilo:
Hi Nikita
I think if it can be reasonably fixed it probably would make sense for
consistency and WTF-avoidance if anything.
Agree. I don't think the question of whether it is useful should come into
this, it's a matter of language
>
> On Aug 10, 2020 at 11:02 AM, mailto:tovilo.il...@gmail.com)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mike > $card_html = << {$card->content}HTML; Two things: 1. We're solely
> talking about string interpolation without braces {}. You're using braces in
> your example and this
The PHP development team announces the immediate availability of PHP
7.4.9. This is a security bug fix release.
All PHP 7.4 users are encouraged to upgrade to this version.
For source downloads of PHP 7.4.9 please visit our downloads page.
Windows binaries can be found on the PHP for Windows
On 10.08.20 17:40, Derick Rethans wrote:
It missing an ending delimiter was my first reason for wanting to get
something better than @@. I don't particularly care much if it ends up
being @[], #[], <<>>, or other things such as @:( ).
If you have something to open, and close, there there is a
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:37 AM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:57 AM Philip Hofstetter <
> phofstet...@sensational.ch> wrote:
> > In many cases, I've been using the ZEND_ENGINE_3 define to handle the
> > PHP 5/7 difference.
> >
> > Now, the Zend Engine version seems to have been
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Andreas Leathley wrote:
> On 10.08.20 15:05, Markus Fischer wrote:
> > Personally, and never gave it much thought TBH, the `@@` AND `<<`/`>>`
> > in fact is the most "unreadable" version to me because duplicate
> > occurrence of a single character somehow creates a noise _for
Hi Nikita
> > I think if it can be reasonably fixed it probably would make sense for
> > consistency and WTF-avoidance if anything.
>
> Agree. I don't think the question of whether it is useful should come into
> this, it's a matter of language consistency. There could be some leeway
> here if we
Hi Mike
> $card_html = <<
> {$card->content}HTML;
Two things:
1. We're solely talking about string interpolation without braces {}.
You're using braces in your example and this does indeed work right
now.
2. The semantics of ?-> are different than you're depicting them to be
in this
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 14:59, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I did answer that as a reply to Rowan:
>
> https://externals.io/message/111312#111346
I'm with Rowan's response to you: https://externals.io/message/111312#111354
What is the difference between mandatory parentheses giving:
<><>(
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 14:56, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:40 PM Rowan Tommins
> wrote:
>
>> The question asked was that _if the parentheses were made mandatory_,
>> would
>> this provide the same benefits ascribed to the other syntaxes?
>>
>
> For me It would indeed
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 4:28 PM Theodore Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:41 AM Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
> > with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
> >
> >
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:15, Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> > I am not a fan of the @@ syntax, and respect what you're trying to do with
> > this RFC, but am disappointed you haven't engaged with those of us who said
> > that the RFC needs more detail.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:52 PM guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One question I'd like answered is that, like me, a few people have
> voted NO on the question to re-vote the syntax.
> If that is true, shouldn't their first primary choice be implied to be
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2020 at 3:00 PM, mailto:deleu...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
>
>
> I like and make use of interpolation, but I can't think of a use case for
> this. Is there any valid use case that would benefit from this fix regardless
> of personal preference? In other words,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:40 PM Rowan Tommins
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Benjamin Eberlei
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:28 AM Peter Bowyer >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I have voted no because I asked a question about the ending delimiter
> and
> >> why () didn't
On 10.08.20 15:05, Markus Fischer wrote:
Personally, and never gave it much thought TBH, the `@@` AND `<<`/`>>`
in fact is the most "unreadable" version to me because duplicate
occurrence of a single character somehow creates a noise _for me_,
I don't feel eligible to have a vote, but based on
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 10.08.2020 at 10:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Theodore Brown wrote:
> >
> >> - Used by other language:
> >> - This is listed as an advantage for `#[]` and `<<>>`. However, the
> >> table
> >> fails to point out
Hi,
One question I'd like answered is that, like me, a few people have
voted NO on the question to re-vote the syntax.
If that is true, shouldn't their first primary choice be implied to be
<<>> instead of anything else? I see 7 votes for no, but I'm the only
one that still kept the first voting
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> The vote on the PHP namespace policy is now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php_namespace_policy
>
> Usual rules, 2/3 required for passage. Vote will be open until 9 August.
The vote has been closed. Final results:
Yes: 13
No: 17
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:28 AM Peter Bowyer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have voted no because I asked a question about the ending delimiter and
>> why () didn't count. Another person asked a similar question and neither
>> of
>> us got a reply.
On 10.08.20 15:08, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
() does not count as ending symbol, because it is not required, as
such its
not an ending symbol.
The point Andreas Leathley makes in the discussion thread about new Foo not
having an end symbol demonstrates exactly the opposite point he was trying
to
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:41 AM Derick Rethans wrote:
> I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
> with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#voting
>
> The first vote is a vote to say that you have an
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:28 AM Peter Bowyer
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:15, Rowan Tommins
> wrote:
>
> > I am not a fan of the @@ syntax, and respect what you're trying to do
> with
> > this RFC, but am disappointed you haven't engaged with those of us who
> said
> > that the RFC needs
On 10.08.20 13:32, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
https://gist.github.com/Seldaek/b7a3bd28920c6cc181e67a829b13a81c
This is really really useful!
However I suggest to look at the raw text rather, because the
highlighting is unaware of the syntax and may bias "how it feels to look
at it" (*):
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rowan Tommins
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:41, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
> > with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Please have a objective look at the table
On 10/08/2020 10:41, Derick Rethans wrote:
I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#voting
Here is a more detailed comparison of how this would look like in real
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 8:34 PM Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> Can't say I'm big on interpolation but I'd definitely expect this to
> work because why not?
A reason why not is because it will break backwards compatibility with
existing (though admittedly unlikely) code which also can't be fixed
by
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 8:34 PM Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On 09/08/2020 00:17, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > Do we expect this to work?
> >
> > $foo = new stdClass;
> > $foo->bar = "Hello";
> > echo "$foo?->bar world\n";
> >
> > Because at the moment it doesn't: https://3v4l.org/nLv3l
> >
> > -Sara
>
>
On 10.08.2020 at 10:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Theodore Brown wrote:
>
>> - Used by other language:
>> - This is listed as an advantage for `#[]` and `<<>>`. However, the table
>> fails to point out that Hack is migrating away from `<<>>` to `@Attr`.
>
> It can only
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:15, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> I am not a fan of the @@ syntax, and respect what you're trying to do with
> this RFC, but am disappointed you haven't engaged with those of us who said
> that the RFC needs more detail. There is simply not enough information in
> that table
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:41, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
> with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
>
> [...]
>
> Please have a objective look at the table
> (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#proposal)
Hi,
I've just opened the vote to make sure we don't make a terrible mistake
with using the @@ syntax for attributes:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change#voting
The first vote is a vote to say that you have an opinion about attribute
syntax. Make sure to read up on the
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Theodore Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:03 AM Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Theodore Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Even if we assume the implementation is only about 30 lines, it's
> > > still extra complexity that I don't understand the benefit of. I
>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:57 AM Philip Hofstetter <
phofstet...@sensational.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently looking into porting some extensions (both internal and
> public) to PHP 8 while still keeping support for PHP 7 (for the public
> ones) and PHP 5.6 (don't ask :-().
>
> In many
Hi, Internals,
Thanks, Marco and also to Rowans, Josh, David and Tyson
I'll use IIFE in order to avoid global conflicts.
Regards
En lun, 10 ago 2020 02:16:06 +0200 Marco Pivetta
escribió
> Hey Manuel,
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020, 11:02 Manuel Canga wrote:
>
> > Hi
35 matches
Mail list logo
