as
essentially look-up tables before.
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
extension function, and PHP test I've written.
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Changed, it now takes just an array.
Function signature:
mixed array_last_key(array $array)
On 13 July 2012 23:31, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I'm proposing a function called array_last_key(), that takes a
reference to an array, and returns the key of its last
Hi there,
This is a patch that replaces PHP's infamous logo GUIDs with data URIs
instead, and also embed PHP credits in the phpinfo() page, hidden
using JavaScript (but gracefully degrading), to eliminate these GUIDs
altogether.
:)
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/132
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF
forwarding.
On 16 July 2012 02:11, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
I think you meant to send that to the list. :-)
--Larry Garfield
On 07/15/2012 08:07 PM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
It would be nice if PHP 6 unified the semantics of
string/int/float/bool, arrays, and objects
Yeah, we could do something like Java: primitive typed and OOP wrapped
types.
On Jul 16, 2012 10:25 AM, Ralf Lang l...@b1-systems.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
1. Change the error handling system from the current E_* system to
typed exceptions for everything but
the performance
of the Zend Engine, if we would throw out everything, except the PHP 1.0
features: functions, arrays, ints, floats and strings
not that we should do that, I just think that the numbers are somehow
misleading.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF
? Would this be viable? Is there any still-present reason
why we shouldn't support that?
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
. This would add a second
meaning which would be somewhat similar to const (but only
somewhat).
Nikita
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
. It is definitely
something worth discussing, but is rather off-topic here.
Definitely agree. Unless the discussion is specific to this RFC, please
start a new thread for any commentary on errors in core...
Anthony
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
be very useful. But it doesn't work all the time.
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
functions have it), I
suggest that it is not part of random_string(). Make a new function
str_from_character_class(), or if you use pcre like above
pcre_str_from_character_class()?
--
Alex Aulbach
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
.
I am working on an implementation of this for arrays, but I haven't
got very far. However, for someone that knows the Zend engine
internals, it does not appear to me that adding such things would be
very difficult.
Thoughts?
--
Andrew Faulds (AJF)
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
That would be nice and all, but I'd rather we add methods to arrays.
On Jul 17, 2012 1:26 AM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/12 01:33, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Hey all,
I know that 6.0 was originally supposed to be the unicode conversion of
the
engine. However it appears
I think strings are even more important, they have an even messier API than
arrays.
On Jul 17, 2012 11:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt
wrote:
Let's ignore empty arguments like make[s] PHP feel modern.
I might not have made it clear, but the main reasons I want it are:
- Chance to clean up array/string/etc APIs
- Looks nicer IMO, slightly clearer what functions do and affect
On Jul 17, 2012 11:21 AM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:07:09 +0200, Pierre Joye
This is an excellent idea. Full BC yet without legacy cruft. Old code runs
on legacy support extensions, new code doesn't need it.
On Jul 17, 2012 1:51 PM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, the current function library is moved to the legacy
namespace. The default setting is import
Whilst weak typing has its benefits, I think typing is a little too weak in
places. IMO should not be equal to 0 or coercable to 0. But of course
0 should equal 0.
On Jul 17, 2012 3:04 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 03:07 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
On Tue, Jul
The problem, of course, is changing and removing things can break BC. I'd
love to remove list() too, but that would break code relying on it.
On Jul 17, 2012 4:23 PM, Christoph Hochstrasser
christoph.hochstras...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some of the things I want to see in PHP 6:
New designed
https://plus.google.com/101400775372325517263
@dancryer http://www.twitter.com/dancryer
On 17 July 2012 16:32, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2012 4:23 PM, Christoph Hochstrasser
christoph.hochstras...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some of the things I want to see
of it, as with these legacy functions, would be
a
mistake)...
My $0.02 at least.
Anthony
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com
wrote:
This is an excellent idea. Full BC yet without legacy cruft. Old code
runs
on legacy support extensions, new code doesn't need
Sounds good, search engines aren't always super smart.
On Jul 18, 2012 1:20 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed something that I hadn't really thought about before. I
couldn't remember the name of the function for parsing INI files so I did a
quick search. It took me
OK, ok. Let me clear some things up here.
We don't want it to make things more object-oriented or whatever. The real
motivation is to give us a chance to make a much cleaner, much nicer array
API without breaking BC. We can keep the legacy array_* and unprefixed
functions, but we can also create
Sounds good. CoffeeScript (a lightweight language with JS semantics that
compiles to JS) has a existential operator, ?, and this looks similar and
would be very nice. It's not the same thing, of course. It also reminds me
of JavaScript's || behaviour.
On Jul 18, 2012 3:24 PM, Rafael Dohms
Sounds great. Python has something similar for tuples, would be good if PHP
had this.
Are there any BC concerns? Don't see why this could break something.
On Jul 18, 2012 3:50 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hi:
this is not a new RFC, I proposed it before, but due to my poor
)
But OOP-like syntax on non-object data is still weird. The question about
data manipulation behavior (is it a pointer like other objects or is it a
scalar like existing array?) is a tough one.
2012/7/18 Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com
OK, ok. Let me clear some things up here.
We don't
WHAT?
Er, sorry, accidental capslock. This IS a new API. That was an example. I'm
not saying just put - everywhere, I'm saying we can keep array_* and add a
new set of - functions which are well-designed, consistent, etc.
On Jul 18, 2012 5:35 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Obviously. This is simply the means to provide the new API without breaking
BC. If people think this is acceptable then sure, let's plan an API.
On Jul 18, 2012 5:54 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Er, sorry, accidental capslock. This IS a new API. That was an example.
:27 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.comwrote:
To avoid BC breaks we should try to avoid major syntax changes. We could
make new applications hide legacy though, something like use new;
which
would remove deprecated and legacy functions from the global namespace.
On Jul 18, 2012 12:16 AM
Kris, I'd love to break BC a lot and fix things, but it would seriously
slow adoption. Fixing *bugs* has stopped people upgrading, imagine how they
would react to non-bugs being changed.
On Jul 18, 2012 7:21 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Andrew
Chaos will surely be, if we break PHP5 code. It should work without
modification. ?php6 is fine, ?php isn't.
On Jul 18, 2012 9:34 PM, Daniel Macedo admac...@gmail.com wrote:
use a slightly modified version of the open tag, for example ?php6 or
*php, etc. This satisfies several desires: we
...er, php5 isn't fine.
On Jul 18, 2012 9:34 PM, Daniel Macedo admac...@gmail.com wrote:
use a slightly modified version of the open tag, for example ?php6 or
*php, etc. This satisfies several desires: we don't want an extra
line of boilerplate code like 'use PHP 6' to be required in every
Sure, BC breaks for 6.0, but it worries me. I don't want a Python 3 for PHP
6. Or heck, PHP5 for that matter.
On Jul 18, 2012 9:50 PM, Stan Vass sv_for...@fmethod.com wrote:
Chaos will surely be, if we break PHP5 code. It should work without
modification. ?php6 is fine, ?php isn't.
On Jul 18,
Cap it at INT_MAX, yeah, that seems reasonable. A notice seems reasonable
but production servers displaying errors... devs will go mad :)
On Jul 18, 2012 11:39 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals!
When a large floating point number is cast to an integer we currently
have
Our syntax is very, very confusing for newbies. Also, procedural and OOP
programming is unnatural and unintuitive. We should use the natural LISP
braces syntax and make PHP functional, so it is much easier to write, e.g.:
((decl (main (echo (add (reverse (array (1 2 3))) (string ('h 'e 'l 'l 'o
One consideration: Should be a general array/string/int/float/bool API. PHP
is weakly typed: therefore, say, reverse() would reverse a string OR an
array. negate() would invert a bool, negate an int/float. slice() would
slice a section of a string OR an array. max() would find maximum of an
array,
Right, because I've never got them the wrong way round, that is completely
logical, and this syntax makes it much harder.
On Jul 19, 2012 1:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/18/2012 05:10 PM, David Muir wrote:
On 19/07/12 04:49, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 07/18/2012 01:02
+1
There's a reason that web browser APIs have so much cruft (user-agent
string, yuck), and there's a reason for ECMAScript 5's use strict instead
of use legacy. Old code should work without changing it. Otherwise a lot
of things break which take a lot of time to fix, and even worse, devs can
an emulator not perfectly emulate.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com
wrote:
+1
There's a reason that web browser APIs have so much cruft (user-agent
string, yuck), and there's a reason for ECMAScript 5's use strict
instead
of use legacy. Old code should work
Always close p, but never close li :)
On Jul 19, 2012 4:44 PM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
On 7/19/12 5:11 AM, Peter Beverloo wrote:
I have seen this problem happen, people losing time trying to figure out
what is wrong only to find
its a missing bracket.
As Paul said,
We can have more consistent naming, at least.
I like this idea even more now, it means we could have a set of universal
operations:
$bool-negate(); // true - false
$num-negate(); // 7 - -7
$numericString-negate(); // 123 - -123
$float-negate(); // 3.141592 - -3.141592
$customVectorType-negate();
and sloppy coders, and parsers that encourage them.
--Larry Garfield
On 7/19/12 10:52 AM, Andrew Faulds wrote:
Always close p, but never close li :)
On Jul 19, 2012 4:44 PM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
On 7/19/12 5:11 AM, Peter Beverloo wrote:
I have seen this problem happen
PHP is all about backwards compatibility.
We only break things that need to be broken. The legacy
str*/str_*/string_*/array_* functions will still work.
On Jul 19, 2012 5:36 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
should still work. All the string API methods need to be
of
'strict'
warnings across several projects and libraries :( Work that I don't
make any
money from but am having to do simply to keep things simple when the
NEXT
changes happen!
Andrew Faulds wrote: PHP is all about backwards compatibility.
We only break things that need
Forgive my ignorance, what is APC?
On Jul 19, 2012 7:15 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
The goal of this message is to encourage and motivate a few people to
give me a hand with tracking down APC bugs. There are still a few
outstanding bugs that is slowing PHP 5.4 adoption and it
I never said treat them as objects. I said give them methods. Not the same
thing.
And what do you mean by technical debt?
On Jul 19, 2012 9:52 PM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.comwrote:
I think PHP could benefit from
Ah, thanks. My mobile internet is horribly slow: But somehow Gmail works
pretty fast (constant connection??). Hence not Googling first.
On Jul 19, 2012 10:44 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
2012/7/19 Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com:
Forgive my ignorance, what is APC
I'm curious, how do I make my objects have scalar passing semantics, then?
On Jul 20, 2012 12:35 AM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.comwrote:
I never said treat them as objects. I said give them methods. Not the
same
I don't think we should add it purely for consistency, because then we'd
have to allow nonsense like:
switch x;
case 1;
endcase;
endswitch;
or...
try;
x;
catch e;
endtry;
Sure, consistency is good, but this would allow sloppy code.
On Jul 20, 2012 8:36 AM, Amaury Bouchard ama...@amaury.net
Exactly. Much of my focus is making PHP more consistent and logical, and
hence easier to learn. It would be nice if PHP was as easy as Python,
someday. (for example)
On Jul 20, 2012 10:57 AM, Rafael Dohms lis...@rafaeldohms.com.br wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Lester Caine
Whilst I feel some sympathy for you, I must ask if it is really the PHP
project to blame if your hosts use old PHP versions?
On Jul 20, 2012 12:50 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Daniel Macedo wrote:
One little change in PHP5.3.10 or so wiped out a whole block of mine, and
the fix
Well, in the spirit of PHP, let's make version_compare_fixed()!
On Jul 20, 2012 1:41 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk wrote:
From the comments in the documentation, it seems others are having the same
problem with version_compare() that I was running into:
If I understand this correctly, this is like what Python let's you do with
tuples. It's handy for getting vector components, hostnames and port
numbers, etc. (I apologise for the Python comparison, it is just the
language where I usually encounter this, and it makes heavy use of
foreach-style
Python isn't coding-style constrained, it just uses increases and decreases
whitespace as part of the block syntax. It has considerable flexibility,
but not PHP/Perl-level.
On Jul 20, 2012 3:33 PM, Amaury Bouchard ama...@amaury.net wrote:
2012/7/20 Alex Aulbach alex.aulb...@gmail.com
PS: And
Yeah, that's what I realised as I wrote that. PHP functions don't really
use tuples etc. very much, unlike Python. That said, now we have short
array syntax, and if we add this, perhaps people will use it more.
Still, at the moment the usefulness of this is limited. Perhaps
destructuring
Yeah, that would definitely be a bug.
On Jul 21, 2012 7:23 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
1.01 eq 1.1
Could you explain this one to me? In every versioning system I've ever
used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev
I also think ? is good. Consider:
? if (user.loggedin) ?
a href=/logoutLogout/a
? elseif ?
? href=/loginLog in/a | a href=/registerRegister/a
? endif ?
With ?php, it's less readable (it's not so bad, but I certainly prefer the
former.)
?php if (user.loggedin) ?
a href=/logoutLogout/a
?php
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rasmus Schultz ras...@mindplay.dk
wrote:
Of course that would break backwards
are not. They are just not
correct and confusing, as you noticed.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com
wrote:
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre
not
correct and confusing, as you noticed.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Faulds ajf...@googlemail.com
wrote:
What? x, x.y, x.y.z, x.y.z.a, etc are all valid.
1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.2.3, in that order, would be valid.
On Jul 21, 2012 10:07 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote
If you think 1.1 =/= 1.01 you're sure using some weird version numbers.
Only 1.0.1 would be smaller.
Has anyone seen these weird version ordering schemes in practise? On any
major projects of note?
On Jul 21, 2012 10:51 AM, Tjerk Meesters tjerk.meest...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Jul, 2012, at
Maybe it should have an optional extra parameter specifying comparison
mode? (I.e. version formatting)
On Jul 21, 2012 1:08 PM, Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/12 11:32, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
No, I mean version with 1.0 and not 1.0.0 are not. They are just not
correct
Don't worry, I unsubscribed on old account. It's forwarding.
On 23 July 2012 at 00:49 Good Guy xfs...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/07/2012 15:40, Andrew Faulds wrote:
Hi there,
My old email address was ajf...@googlemail.com, I am now using a...@ajf.me.
I'm not sure I need to point
useful also in the scenario where you want a random value of nested arrays
($array['thing']['foo']).
Enough rambling, here's a pull request. https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/142
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/142
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
it is shorter, and has a similar name to similar functions in
Python (random.choice) and GML (choose)
- However, this could be changed.
---
Thoughts?
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
that array_rand_key is a better name, I have chosen
array_pick because it is shorter, and has a similar name to similar functions in
Python (random.choice) and GML (choose)
- However, this could be changed.
---
Thoughts?
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
On 24/07/12 14:40, Levi Morrison wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hi:
As the previous threads disscussed, I make a implemention.
here is the RFC:
On 24/07/12 14:48, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 19:20 +0800, Laruence wrote:
Hi:
As the previous threads disscussed, I make a implemention.
here is the RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/finally
any suggestions?
thanks
As PHP has destructors there is less need
On 24/07/12 16:16, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 07/24/2012 06:35 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hi:
As the previous threads disscussed, I make a implemention.
here is the RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/finally
any
(with newlines it would be more clear), but it
looks a little weird to me.
Just my 2¢.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
somebody already wrote Python! :)
PHP risks losing some of its uniqueness to fixing things, unfortunately.
But losing bad features and moving forward is good, right?
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
with the implementation of an iterator, why
do we need to have it as _function_?
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
does them. I'm just
saying that 1) keeping things because they've always been done one way
is not a good reason to keep them, and 2) just because Python does the
same or a similar thing, does not mean PHP is turning into Python.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On 24/07/12 18:56, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar g.b.ya...@gmail.com:
I agree, implementing a class only for iterator may be pain sometimes, and
functions is much better
generator syntax.
On 24 ביול 2012, at 20:56, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Much easier to make an iterator with a function than as a class.
2012/7/24 Yahav Gindi Bar g.b.ya...@gmail.com:
I agree, implementing a class only for iterator may be pain sometimes
On 24/07/12 19:32, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/24 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
But PHP functions usually have side-effects, they aren't strict mathematical
functions.
Ah, you might mean str_tok()? Are there more, do you have a list?
But we're in PHP-programming-context. You write a function
.
And anyway, what could possibly go wrong? Is there any incorrect but
non-fatal or warning-generating way you could use them?
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Like they have already... :/
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
( I'll start a new thread for my other rant ... )
nah, you won't, you will bring that up in every thread instead.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Generators aren't for you, then, they are for people like me who, for example,
used a C# generator for yielding tokens, or, for example, use generators to
iterate element by element through multi-dimensional arrays.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Lester Caine les
We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
Also, 20 years experience does not necessarily a good programmer make, nor an
expert in other programmers.
--
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Sherif Ramadan theanomaly
noGenerators and then break tons of
third-party code relying on it? Or do you think you're forced to use them?
I don't understand, sorry.
A feature's existence doesn't mean you're forced to use it. Did the
introduction of short array syntax force you to use [] instead of array()?!
--
Andrew
On 25/07/12 16:11, Lester Caine wrote:
Andrew Faulds wrote:
I top you 20 years with 37 years. I was programming in Algol in 1975
( at
Warwick university ). I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware engineer
who has to
program to make systems work. I added PHP 12 years ago to create web
based
Is there a PHP 6 wiki page for co-ordinating development of and
collecting ideas for PHP6 development?
There are a lot of idea being thrown around, would be nice if we had a
page (there might be one, but I can't find it).
Thanks.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP
?
I don't see how it means anything.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 25/07/12 16:43, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
We, of course, should try to avoid user confusion if it will be a big issue.
But I don't see any here.
I said it's small and the fix is small also. Big issue, big fix, small
issue, small fix. Understand?
Also, 20
- http://tyrael.hu
Oh yes, of course. Experience can be helpful. But you must support
things with facts, as you said. However I don't think simply having a
lot of experience is always meaningful. It's not really how much, more
*what* experience you have that I think really matters here.
--
Andrew
- http://tyrael.hu
I think this quote from that sums this up nicely: Although certain
classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong
inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a
fallacious manner.
Now, let us not argue about this any more :D
--
Andrew
on it.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 25/07/12 17:54, Alex Aulbach wrote:
2012/7/25 Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me:
Experience can be helpful. But you must support things with facts
Ok, I tried to bring all the pro arguments together.
Suggestion:
For a generator, rename the keyword function to ... generator or
something like
functions, they just suspend execution. Also, other
languages (e.g. Python) have added generators without special syntax,
seemingly without issues.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
an RFC. Plus
it would provide for an obvious way to sort RFCs in a list, by number.
At the moment I'm not really sure if there's an sort of sorting on the
RFCs page, although RFCs certainly seem to be categorised.
Thoughts?
Apologies again,
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals
Andrew:
On 25 Jul 2012, at 22:50, Andrew Faulds wrote:
I think someone (perhaps me) should write an RFC on how to write an RFC
Note that a new page create on the wiki in the RFC namespace comes with a
template that gives some guidance on how to write an RFC.
Lukas based it on my original Traits
language (DokuWiki's if separable, else I'd
suggest Markdown), or no formatting language (plain text), and a
flat-file or DB storage system (would prefer the former personally).
I'd be willing to write one, although I'm away next week. But I could
work on it today and tommorow.
--
Andrew Faulds
http
On 26/07/12 18:46, Levi Morrison wrote:
I'm in favor of an RFC app on the condition it has a nice UX and has
complete unit tests.
Welp, guess it's time for me to learn how to unit-test properly.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
On 26/07/12 18:53, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me
mailto:a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 26/07/12 18:46, Levi Morrison wrote:
I'm in favor of an RFC app on the condition it has a nice UX
and has
complete unit tests.
Welp
On 26/07/12 19:11, Evert Pot wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 26/07/12 18:46, Levi Morrison wrote:
I'm in favor of an RFC app on the condition it has a nice UX and has
complete unit tests.
Welp
page? I'm not going to
fundamentally change anything.
--
Andrew Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
