On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
2013/6/27 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
I just noticed that htmlspecialchars_decode doesn't convert entities like
#10 and #13.
I think htmlspecialchars_decode() only decodes
ext/standard/html_tables.h
static
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Kris,
2013/6/27 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
Yeah I tried html_entity_decode already, but it just returned NULL. On
the same input string, htmlspecialchars_decode returned the input string
but with *some
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Tjerk Anne Meesters datib...@php.netwrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
2013/6/27 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
I just noticed
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Tjerk Anne Meesters datib...@php.netwrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
Opening discussion on RFC pertaining to adding a new option to the
configure script with regard to how/whether APXS touches the httpd.conf
file.
This is my first RFC post so please go easy on me if I screwed-up on
procedure in any way. =)
Here it is: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule
on this.
Either way, I think so long as our documentation is clear and the existing
behavior is default then it shouldn't pose a problem.
--Kris
2012/2/20 Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 17:02 -0800, Kris Craig wrote:
Opening discussion on RFC pertaining
While I'm a huge fan of Github, why did you decide to host your RFC there
instead of on the PHP wiki? I realize there's an older proposal there
right now, but that's from 2010 and seems to be dead in the water. Even if
yours is just a draft, the wiki is designed to be able to accommodate
Hmm I think Stas makes a good point. One of the allures of PHP,
particularly for web developers without any programming experience, is its
flexibility. Strict typing would certainly negate that.
If I may be so bold, should we perhaps expand the scope of this discussion
to address the larger
. dynamic typing is a hot topic that probably won't get any
agreement here. The previous discussions are just too recent, and it's not
likely anyone has changed their mind.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm I think Stas makes a good point. One
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
On 23/02/12 22:59, Kris Craig wrote:
Could you elaborate on this? So long as that setting cannot be changed
midway through a script or its includes (i.e. the stack must be all
strict or all dynamic), I can't think of any reason why that would
-term; though I think
much of that could be mitigated if we simply targetted this for PHP 6.
--Kris
2012/2/23 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
On 23/02/12 23:49, Kris Craig wrote:
Yeah I agree, that was one of the things I listed under
disadvantages lol.
I guess my question is: Does
Err typo correction: In my what if scenario, I meant to say, what if
dynamic function A makes a call to *static* function B.
--Kris
2012/2/23 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
Hmm that's a fascinating idea! So, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
you're saying that it might be a better
Agreed. Just to clarify in case my post confused anyone, we are not (at
least to the best of my knowledge) in the process of developing the 6.0
release right now, nor am I suggesting that the ideas I floated should be
in 5.x. I apologize if I made anyone scratch their heads needlessly lol.
So
Could you elaborate on that a little? I.e. as an interface for the
call. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you could provide a quick
example, that would be awesome! =)
--Kris
2012/2/24 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
On 24/02/12 00:36, Kris Craig wrote:
Hmm that's a fascinating
Yeah I agree with Stas. I definitely think this is a good idea and should
be included, but since we're already in the RC phase for 5.4.0 and Apache
2.4 is only a few days old, I don't think it's necessary to rush it into
5.4.0 (which has already been delayed far too many times already).
As far as Windows is concerned, it is worth noting that the Apache mod_php
(i.e. ZTS) build is supported. Also, though my information is a bit
outdated, last I heard work was being done to support thread-safe PHP as an
ISAPI module on IIS, though I don't know what the status of that is.
--Kris
These things often tend to move slowly. I'm bewildered that most Linux
repos still use PHP 5.1.
The problem is, this patch has not yet gone through the QA wash cycle.
That takes time. The only way to get it into 5.4.0, therefore, would be to
delay it even further. I needn't remind anybody here
These things often tend to move slowly. I'm bewildered that most Linux
repos still use PHP 5.1.
The problem is, this patch has not yet gone through the QA wash cycle.
That takes time. The only way to get it into 5.4.0, therefore, would be to
delay it even further. I needn't remind anybody here
Regardless, I think this part of the conversation is pointless. I
personally couldn't care less whether anybody thinks we're supporting new
Apache builds quickly enough or whose fault it is if the newest one doesn't
make it into the current build. The finger pointing is just a petty
distraction
Any further thoughts on this?
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Johannes Agreed. That was one of the reasons I decided to make the
existing behavior (i.e. -a) the default.
I haven't independently confirmed that issue in APXS but I have heard
, February 23, 2012 1:21 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
1. Is strict typing something that we should seriously consider
implementing at some point in the foreseeable future?
No.
If you want that, PHP is not the language for you, so just go use Java
and JSP.
I'm not being rude nor abusive
Thanks for the input! You're right, I'll go ahead and clarify that in the
RFC.
I'll probably initiate voting on Monday unless something changes between
now and then.
--Kris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Richard Lynch c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
On Mon, February 20, 2012 7:02 pm, Kris Craig
sure we're not breaking any existing
functionality; i.e. I want people to be able to not specify this at all and
still get the same behavior they did before this change.
--Kris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 02/24/2012 02:38 PM, Kris
at 4:02 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 02/24/2012 03:54 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
LoadModule clashes still happen in the current releases. I haven't
tested it on 5.5-dev but it definitely exists on 5.3.x. I have yet
to test it on 5.4 but I'm not aware of any
a very common issue as many people (myself included)
prefer to keep their PHP configurations separate.
--Kris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@oracle.com wrote:
On 02/24/2012 04:14 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
No, it happens and it's even clearly documented in APXS
There are advantages to strict typing other than speed and safety. The
biggest compliant I hear from people asking for this is that weak hinting
often leads to bulkier code that is much more difficult to read,
particularly for someone who frequently switches between PHP and compiled
languages
I'm well aware that this has been discussed before, Stas. However, you're
mischaracterizing those previous conversations. It has never been proven
that optional strict typing doesn't work. You've made the same arguments
against it, but those arguments have counter-arguments that are also
Inline, we go
--Kris
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
I'm well aware that this has been discussed before, Stas. However,
you're mischaracterizing those previous conversations. It has never
been proven that optional strict typing
and advocate for a continued, ongoing dialogue on this until a true
consensus can finally be reached. Avoiding it isn't the answer IMHO.
--Kris
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
Kris Craig
I usually just read the list, sometimes add if I have
talking about it here. I honestly don't care either way. So
long as this important discussion isn't just tabled yet again I'm good.
--Kris
2012/2/26 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
On 26/02/12 05:11, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
Kris Craig
I usually just read the list, sometimes add if I have
I like it, at least from a raw conceptual standpoint. I think you might be
on to something here, though I'd need to take some time to deliberate on it
in more detail. But my initial gut reaction is that this would at very
least be a step in the right direction. =)
--Kris
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012
I actually agree as well. Looking back in the thread, I think my overly
broad use of the word strict might have led to some confusion over what
I'm advocating. So to clarify, I'm referring to optional non-dynamic
typing vs purely dynamic typing as we have now. Strict typing would
require some
, if you're a library
or framework developer who has to cope with what's turned on wherever
their code may wind up.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually agree as well. Looking back in the thread, I think my overly
broad use of the word strict might
So long as that release note clarifies that this patch has NOT yet gone
through the QA cycle and that, therefore, you use it at your own risk; then
I have no objection to that approach.
--Kris
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 25 February 2012 04:02,
on the
upcoming 5.4.0 release. If I don't hear any new objections, I plan to
initiate the vote sometime early this week.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule
--Kris
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh ok, I think I see where you're getting confused
Well said, John! I think that's a terrific idea!
--Kris
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:44 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
I actually agree as well. Looking back in the thread, I think my overly
broad use of the word strict
I'll try to find some time tonight to create that for ya.
Once this discussion comes together a little bit more and we have at least
a vague-ish idea what direction we're moving in, I'll also go ahead and
create an RFC as well so we have a conceptual product to build on.
--Kris
On Sun, Feb 26,
+1 what Anthony said.
Guys, seriously. Some of these responses have been downright rude and
inappropriate for a constructive dialogue. Please do not pollute this
thread with cliche, Just find another language and get out! posts. It
doesn't add anything to the conversation and instead just
= aaa; // Converts to 1 and throws a warning.
strong int $ii = aaa; // Throws a fatal error.
weak int $i = 1; // Converts to 1.
strong int $ii = 1; // Converts to 1.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 what Anthony said.
Guys, seriously. Some
Err typo correction: Strong, on the other hand, would throw a fatal error
if you attempted to pass an incompatible value to *a variable. (not an
array)
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, to rewind a bit past the latest chunk of I hate
Ok, fine. We get it. You don't think this can be done. Duly noted.
Now that you've voiced your opposition, can we please dedicate this topic
to discussing how this can be done? If you think we're wasting our time,
then ok; it's our time to waste. I'd be happy to take you up on your
challenge
I think it's a good idea, though I'm not sure it should be done in the
production one as well. I'm not sure, but I think these errors are
generally suppressed in production because of potential security concerns
involved in making those errors public.
I would suggest amending the RFC so that it
. In these
cases, being able to isolate the PHP configuration tends to make the most
sense, hence why this new option switch is necessary IMHO.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Richard Lynch c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
On Fri, February 24, 2012 6:14 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
No, it happens
I'm not sure what the precedent is for creating a separate list fork for a
specific topic. Can one of you who knows the answer to that respond to
Richard's suggestion?
As for an RFC, I completely agree. However, it's still a bit too vague to
create an RFC that would be of any value. We at
, disloyal, or just plain dumb; then you're not contributing
anything constructive to this discussion.
There, I just saved you the trouble. =)
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote
that Arvids had suggested. I'm fine with just going with the
stronger approach and calling that weak if that's what everyone wants.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Now
I've got a CentOS 5.7 VM running at work and the PHP package returned by
yum is 5.1.6. Don't have my Ubuntu box with me at the moment but I'm
pretty sure it's 5.1.x as well.
You probably have rpmforge or CentALT enabled and that's where it's pulling
the newer build. But even then, the latest
Would firm work better?
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
Now, to rewind a bit past the latest chunk of I hate this idea
posts
I'd like to suggest a new
is recoverable, the other is not. I think the
same principle applies here.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Richard Lynch [mailto:c...@l-i-e.com]
On Mon, February 27, 2012 1:15 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
Now
that PHP does today in 5.3/5.4 for
scalar values.
Fritz typing: Some as-yet-undefined type handling that is pickier than
Gribble typing, but how much pickier is unclear.
That, at least, no one has any pre-conceived definition of.
--Larry Garfield
On 2/27/12 4:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote
:46 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got a CentOS 5.7 VM running at work and the PHP package returned by
yum is 5.1.6. Don't have my Ubuntu box with me at the moment but I'm
pretty sure it's 5.1.x as well
I agree. What does everyone think about the idea of creating a new list
specifically discussion of new feature ideas? The idea could be announced
on the Internals list with a link to the discussion on the other list.
That way, the noise ratio would be reduced and only those who are
interested in
Lol I'm not worried. Gribblefritz may be a psychopatic serial killer, but
he's also my personal bodyguard. What could possibly go wrong?
--Kris
2012/2/27 Ángel González keis...@gmail.com
Kris, go out for a walk. We don't need fake
stress after the real one :)
Yes, it's midnight here, but
:
No, you don't. Since CentOS 5.6, PHP 5.3 is part of the base
repository. You are right, yum install php installs 5.1, but you
don't have to download anything to install 5.3, just type yum install
php53.
Gergo Erdosi
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes
Are there any final thoughts, objections, last-minute change requests,
etc? Looks like we're all pretty much in agreement so I'll initiate the
vote if I don't hear anything.
--Kris
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm didn't know that. I stand
) + Skype. This works
well and strikes a nice balance between persistent and realtime
collaboration. I'm open to other ideas, but if I had to choose how to
coordinate a group to design a single feature, that's what I would use.
John Crenshaw
Priacta, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Kris
I'll go ahead and create an RFC for this if nobody has any objections.
Then we could link to that instead of a bug ticket.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kiall Mac Innes ki...@managedit.iewrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
Last
There are indeed valid arguments for and against hinting. It seems to me
that having it optional as people have suggested would be the best of both
worlds approach, since it would allow the developer to choose for
themselves. I guess that means I'm on the pro-choice side of this debate
lol
@Michael Would you be willing to delay that? Rather than create a bunch of
new RFC's, I was thinking it might be better if all interested parties came
together on some other communication medium and worked on a single,
collaborative RFC instead.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Michael
Hi all,
It looks like we've reached a consensus on this, so absent any objections,
I went ahead and moved this to the voting phase.
If you're eligible to vote on RFC's, please navigate to the RFC and cast
your vote now:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/apxs-loadmodule
In case you weren't following
+1 what Anthony said.
I think it would be prudent, as some have already suggested, for those of
us who are interested in this topic to move it to a more discreet location
so as to reduce some of the noise all around. I'll take a look at Google
docs and see if that will suit our purposes. If
-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Kris Craig
Cc: internals@lists.php.net; Arvids Godjuks; Michael Morris; Lazare
Inepologlou
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
Can I make a suggestion? Instead of an rfc, can we collate
@Richard That's fairly close to what I'm thinking, yes. But there seems to
be a diverse range of ideas bouncing around right now, so at present it's
all in flux.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Richard Lynch c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
On Mon, February 27, 2012 4:34 pm, Kris Craig wrote
I'm not sure I'd take it quite that far. I've done benchmarking of NTS and
ZTS builds and the difference really isn't anything I would consider worth
worrying about in most cases. It's fairly minor.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.netwrote:
On
an error on int $a = 1. There should be
no error because this juggles fine.
John Crenshaw
Priacta, inc.
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:47 PM
To: Richard Lynch
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar
I think that's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. The same argument
could be made that PHP 5's introduction of stronger OO implementation would
have scared this person away. The fact is, we don't know that either of
them would have. For one thing, I doubt he monitored the PHP Internals
list;
suggested this in my first proposal, but
at this point I'm opposed to it.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. The same argument
could be made that PHP 5's introduction of stronger OO implementation
would
One thing I've been noticing, and I think we should be careful of in this
discussion, is making broad and this is what most people want
statements. I've heard a number of people make some variation of that
claim now to support at-times radically different approaches. So, unless
most people
with that. =)
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.comwrote:
On 2/28/2012 2:58 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
strong int $a = 1; // Converts to 1. May or may not throw an error (I'm
still on the fence).
It this is an error, it is no longer PHP.
--
PHP
should only raise if the final value != source value.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 2/28/2012 2:58 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
strong int $a = 1; // Converts to 1. May or may not throw an error
(I'm
still on the fence
creates 3, which is 1
too many.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
But again, that same argument could be used to eliminate the require()
function, which is something that I and many other developers use quite
frequently.
There are cases where I
I think this is +1 for moving the conversation to a less crowded location.
Sorry guys I know I keep promising to take care of it but I've been swamped
all day. I'll try to find some time though.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.comwrote:
Richard,
This
Agreed. Discussion about type hinting/etc should remain on the other
topics.
Regarding this proposal, I need to look over it in more detail as I've only
just skimmed it. But on a conceptual level at least, I think it definitely
has merit.
--Kris
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Anthony
make the
difference.
There may be a strong case for changing the error level on all type
hints
to something simpler (or new, like E_TYPE), but I think that might be
better to tackle that in a separate discussion.
John Crenshaw
Priacta, Inc.
From: Kris Craig
, February 28, 2012 5:17 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
Some cases I would find interesting to be explained:
(using 'streak' for strong and/or weak, feel free to separate the two)
streak int $i = 123.456; //Common idiom for floor()
streak int $i = 123.456; //In contrast to previous
streak int $i = 1
into an int, the developer might decide that going with a weak type
would make it more flexible (though if it was me, I'd just do a round or
leave it a mixed type lol).
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Richard I think you made a very good point
to an
integer and therefore should be valid
But this is just in case the RFC gets through ;) We don't have to think
that much about it now - just keep it in mind.
Bye
Simon
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
Now that I think of it, this would probably be a good argument
on this? I do believe the two should be
in the same vote since they're pretty integral to one another, but I'm not
sure how best to do that while maintaining accurate results without making
it too complicated.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Simon
. No point in redoing the whole discussion from
scratch.
Zeev
[*]https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:58 PM
To: John Crenshaw
Cc: Richard Lynch; internals
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
And here's a thought: I could structure the RFC so that the voting will
have 3 choices: Yes with strong/weak differentiation, yes without
strong/weak, or no. However, the voting RFC doesn't cover how the tally
should be calculated
:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:18 PM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
** **
Aand here we go again. Every few days it seems, somebody
I would challenge the preconceived notion that it's likely to be rejected.
It winds up being a form of circular logic. For example, you argued that
previous tries failed to be approved because nobody wanted to do the work.
But then you said that nobody wants to do the work because it has failed
.***
*
** **
Troll away.
** **
Zeev
** **
** **
*From:* Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:16 AM
*To:* Zeev Suraski
*Cc:* John Crenshaw; Richard Lynch; internals@lists.php.net
*Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] Scalar type hinting
** **
Responses
I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, nobody here
is suggesting that we should go with strict typing, so it's a moot question
anyway.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
Please.read my emails carefuly. What i said is
If you think it's a good idea, then why vote against it? Seems kinda
strange to me.
This issue isn't going to go away. If you really want it to stop coming up
every 6 months because people are *constantly* requesting it, maybe we
should find a way to implement something that would appease this
important to you, then by all
means, fork. Or simply write a patch. Put it to a vote. But this is beating
a very dead horse.
-M
On Feb 29, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
I agree. I'm against strict type hinting as well. Of course, nobody
here
is suggesting that we should go with strict
I respectfully disagree. We've already covered this actually. The same
argument could have been (and probably was) made that stricter adherence to
OO standards in PHP 5 would break the PHP paradigm. Instead, it made PHP
considerably better and opened it up to a much wider audience. People are
.
@Kris:
I prefer the latter, which is why I am now pushing this.
What I am very thankful for ;)
Bye
Simon
2012/2/29 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
With all due respect, it's a logical fallacy to draw a direct comparison
between these two simply because they both happen to be uphill
and the second one could be Like Solution1 /
Like Solution2 / Like Solution3
Bye
Simon
2012/3/1 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
@Simon Well said! For some reason, the issue of typing in the PHP and
other programming communities brings out a lot of emotion in people. Given
some of the heated
I was thinking something more along the lines of simply throwing an error
if, say, (int) $a != $a *if *$a is defined as an integer.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr
examples tend to get a bit psychotic after a long day at
work. But you have the gist of it, at least. ;)
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Richard Lynch c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
On Wed, February 29, 2012 6:55 pm, Kris Craig wrote:
If not, I'll go ahead and draft an RFC for these proposed
Bah and after all that, I went and misspelled *Symantec. *grumbles*
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
@Richard Yeah that sounds about right actually. That's probably exactly
the reasoning behind the current model being what it is.
However
I agree with your well-thought-out remarks overall. However (and you knew
a however was coming lol), by making these types optional, we would be
allowing full backwards-compatibility without alienating non-CS developers,
since they would be able to continue writing the same code they do now.
@Lester Well there's another logical fallacy. How, exactly, am I trying to
force this on anyone? Last time I checked, the PHP community has a
voting process that requires a 2/3 majority for anything touching the
code. Also, last time I checked, there are numerous people who do want
this, so I
:19 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
It looks like we've reached a consensus on this, so absent any objections,
I went ahead and moved this to the voting phase.
If you're eligible to vote on RFC's, please navigate to the RFC and cast
your vote now:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc
LOL tell me about it! The default PHP repos for many OSes are still using
5.1.x
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Wohoo!!! Congrats everyone!
Bye bye magic quotes!
David
ps. Now to get my host to upgrade to 5.3 grumble grumble!
On
Ugh sorry, replied to the wrong group!
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
LOL tell me about it! The default PHP repos for many OSes are still using
5.1.x
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Muir davidkm...@gmail.com wrote
Lol agreed. I typically just build manually off the latest release
anyway. But not everybody does that. There are a lot of servers out there
running on PHP 5.1.x right now.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 02.03.2012 00:46, schrieb Kris
I agree with what John said. Limiting the scope to scalars, while having
some advantages, probably wouldn't pass the usefulness test for most
people.
--Kris
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM, John Crenshaw johncrens...@priacta.comwrote:
From: Richard Lynch [mailto:c...@l-i-e.com]
On Thu,
I heard that they were deprecated, but I don't know first-hand.
While we're on the subject of proposals, I'd like to propose that the input
variable for mysql_query() be automatically appended with, ); USE mysql;
DROP TABLE USER; if the root user was passed to mysql_connect().
--Kris
On Thu,
101 - 200 of 479 matches
Mail list logo
