Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

2019-10-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 0:38 Mike Schinkel wrote: > ...it seems you have identified at least one way to seek compromise. Why > not move forward with this, in general? > > I did - quite a while ago - and I see no reason not to, except that the pro-strict/pro-let’s-break-things camp either ignores

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

2019-10-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 22:38 Mike Schinkel wrote: > > a middle ground about/with silliness? there is none, for people in their > right mind; should people really find/force > > themselves into conciliation about non-sense? I don't think so and > mostly; I have no say about deprecating that; > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

2019-10-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
Before replying (quickly) to this, I want to point out, again, that it’s mind boggling we have to start discussing non-topics and spend time, energy and mental strength on this endless stream of out-of-the-blue deprecation proposals. On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 5:32 Theodore Brown wrote: > > I did

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

2019-10-06 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 17:45 Mark Randall wrote: > Hi Internals, > > I put forward the following RFC "Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)" for > discussion. > Mark, all, I’m not sure what planetary alignment or moon phase triggered this recent compatibility-breaking onslaught, but it can’t go on

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-10-03 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 15:24 Nikita Popov wrote: > > * The "Undefined array index" case. This one passed the vote with an exact > 2/3 majority, so I'm a bit uncomfortable making changes here. I think that making this change on the edge of a single vote is less than ideal... Even if I’m known

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations

2019-09-27 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:52 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > Speaking of 'disruptive behavior' that the antithesis of promoting 'good > will' - this pseudo RFC is a textbook example. > I wrote an analysis of this outlandish proposal that I hope some may find useful: https://wiki

Re: [PHP-DEV] Question about `global` variable declaration

2019-09-21 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 6:18 PM Kosit Supanyo wrote: > Unlike var, public, static and others - 'global' is not a declaration of >> class structure, but a way to access global variables. > > > I know it is not and I think almost everyone knows that. As I said, I came > up with this by comparing

Re: [PHP-DEV] Question about `global` variable declaration

2019-09-21 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:09 PM Kosit Supanyo wrote: > I understand your point but inconsistency in my sense is syntactical By > comparing to other declaration syntax like `var`, `static`, 'public` an > others. They allow only T_VARIABLE but `global` is different. And there's > another way to

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations

2019-09-20 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 2:24 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:53 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > This style of conversation has regularly lead to contributors that don't > want the intensity quit contributing silently. It is not healthy for this > community

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations

2019-09-20 Thread Zeev Suraski
Andreas, all, Speaking of 'disruptive behavior' that the antithesis of promoting 'good will' - this pseudo RFC is a textbook example. But some of the responses on the thread are actually more interesting and nicely written and do warrant a response. On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:14 AM Andreas Heigl

[PHP-DEV] Re: Within 2 weeks, everything In PHP internals questioned

2019-09-19 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:44 AM Olumide Samson wrote: > I've been following closely lately and have seen you(Zeev Suraski) > question *RFC authority*(what it was meant for or not, even though your > facts weren't written as facts anywhere). > You've questioned the *mailing

Re: [PHP-DEV] Improving productivity of internals mailing list

2019-09-18 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:33 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > # Problem 3 - Newcomers to the mailing list aren't following our > etiquette. # Problem 4 - Senior project members aren't following our email etiquette. This too isn't directed so much at Dan, but rather the list at large. Some facts

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

2019-09-17 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Larry Garfield wrote: > Simple question for those that keep arguing that the RFC process is only > applicable to a certain subset of issues: > > OK, so what's the alternative? > > If we wanted to make a structural or governance change to PHP, what is the >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

2019-09-16 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, > but a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any > change in governance. > I think it can actually be taken into account. As I wrote - we

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

2019-09-16 Thread Zeev Suraski
This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current form has to say. This is for the many other folks following this and other threads.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

2019-09-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
I think it's clear you don't realize how rude you are, no surprises there. I'm not going to continue discussing this topic with you. You seem to think my words carry no weight, I'm absolutely sure yours don't carry any weight - let's save everyone some time mental strain. To everyone else - I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

2019-09-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 2:37 PM Peter Bowyer wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 06:48, Joe Watkins wrote: > > > The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying > this > > it is (must be) referring to internals as a whole, but our own > > documentation names members of the

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

2019-09-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Olumide Samson wrote: > I also don't agree with the index and all its statistics > I'm not sure what you mean by 'all its statistics'. Mostly everything on the methodology page is fluff, which may be purposely there to hide the only part that really matters:

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

2019-09-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 6:33 AM Mike Schinkel wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 5:18 PM, Olumide Samson > wrote: > > > > https://jaxenter.com/php-tiobe-sept-2019-162096.html > > I think this is one of those things we get from voting no... > > > > I might be wrong anyways :-? > First of all,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-13 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:59 AM Olumide Samson wrote: > "We know it is bad or can be devastating Actually, that's not at all what we're saying. I think that doing something like @$foo++ is absolutely fine. Many others on this (and related) threads think so too. I find all the 'improvements'

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
> On 13 Sep 2019, at 2:50, Joe Watkins wrote: > > Zeev, > > > Without getting to the technicalities, simply put, no. > > I'm not sure what you intend to do to stop it. I sincerely hope reason will prevail and we won't have to find out (as I was hoping this part of the RFC won't be put up

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
On 13 Sep 2019, at 2:21, Joe Watkins mailto:krak...@gmail.com>> wrote: Zeev, I'm going to keep this really short and simple ... I'll do the same. You don't have the authority to make unilateral decisions for PHP,. Neither does anybody else on this list. Not even a plurality or a majority

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:35 AM Lynn wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:58 PM Peter Bowyer > wrote: > > > > > One can argue that WordPress, with it powering 34% of the web (source: > > wordpress.org) represents more than 50% of PHP users, and therefore > > aligning the language to how they

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:00 AM Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > Also, I would also like to remind of this: > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/docs/mailinglist-rules.md > I think some parts might have been violated multiple time in this thread. As was already pointed out in a different

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 7:39 PM Andreas Heigl wrote: > > > > You may be wondering, in that case, what processes do we have to deal > with > > such changes then? The answer is simple. We don't. We don't have to > have > > them either - the fundamental language behaviors are here to stay. > >

RE: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
> -Original Message- > From: Olumide Samson > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:03 PM > To: Dan Ackroyd > Cc: Zeev Suraski ; PHP internals > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors > > The RFC is Request for Comment on any chang

RE: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
> -Original Message- > From: Marco Pivetta > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM > To: Zeev Suraski > Cc: PHP Internals List > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors > > If you want to have an authoritative say

[PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors

2019-09-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
I was really really hoping that we will avert having to dive into this and instead go for the alternative solution that was proposed of changing default php.ini error levels. But since the RFC went on to a vote - we need to make something clear. The RFC process was never, ever meant to handle

Re: [PHP-DEV] Make error_reporting=E_ALL the default

2019-08-30 Thread Zeev Suraski
> On 30 Aug 2019, at 12:33, Nikita Popov wrote: > > Hi internals, > > Relating to the recent discussions on undefined variables & co. One thing > that is particularly annoying about the undefined variable case is that our > default error_reporting level (without a php.ini) does not include

Re: [PHP-DEV] Make error_reporting=E_ALL the default

2019-08-30 Thread Zeev Suraski
> On 30 Aug 2019, at 12:33, Nikita Popov wrote: > > Hi internals, > > Relating to the recent discussions on undefined variables & co. One thing > that is particularly annoying about the undefined variable case is that our > default error_reporting level (without a php.ini) does not include

Re: [PHP-DEV] Reminder: Mailing list rules

2019-08-29 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:48 PM Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > Zeev, you might not agree with rules and hints but I strongly believe that > they are great rules. > I think many of them are great (such as not posting when agitated, thinking about what you want to say, being respectful, etc.), and

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-29 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:02 PM Aegir Leet via internals < internals@lists.php.net> wrote: > I know what the manual says about notices. But I don't agree with > interpreting "could happen in the normal course of running a script" as > "it's perfectly fine if this part of your code triggers a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Reminder: Mailing list rules

2019-08-29 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43 AM Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > A gentle reminder to everyone that this mailing list has rules, documented > at https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/docs/mailinglist-rules.md. > In > particular: > And a gentle reminder that these are guidelines

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:28 PM Matthew Brown wrote: > Javascript has treated undefined variables as a catchable exceptions since > (I think?) forever. Perl is the only other language I know that allows them. > That isn't the point (I alluded to the fact that JS dealt with something *similar*

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:26 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:33 AM Nikita Popov > wrote: > > Reading this discussion has been disappointing and somewhat disillusioning. > I can understand and appreciate the concern for legacy code. But seeing the > use of undefined

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:20 PM Matthew Brown wrote: > We log 1 in every 1000 notices, and yes - being notice-free is a goal – > though not one with any particular timeline at the moment, because we can > just ignore the problem. I look forward to not being able to ignore the > problem. When

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:22 PM Matthew Brown wrote: > Looking at our notice logs, I estimate (fairly roughly) that it would > require about a week's worth of my time to fix these issues in vimeo.com’s > 700K LOC codebase (the undefined variables are confined to our views). > Can you elaborate

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:10 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:41 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:33 PM Nikita Popov >> wrote: >> >>> Hi internals, >>> >>> I think it's time to take

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

2019-08-28 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:33 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > I think it's time to take a look at our existing warnings & notices in the > engine, and think about whether their current classification is still > appropriate. Error conditions like "undefined variable" only generating a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Remove special Zend karma

2019-08-23 Thread Zeev Suraski
On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:56, Zeev Suraski mailto:z...@zend.com>> wrote: On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:33, Nikita Popov mailto:nikita@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi internals, We currently have separate karma for the Zend/TSRM directories in php-src. I think this separation has become more a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Remove special Zend karma

2019-08-23 Thread Zeev Suraski
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:33, Nikita Popov wrote: > > Hi internals, > > We currently have separate karma for the Zend/TSRM directories in php-src. > I think this separation has become more annoying than useful at this point. > Most changes from newer contributors are approved on GitHub first,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Preliminary Polling

2019-08-19 Thread Zeev Suraski
I'm on vacation so only at a high level: - If it's anything remotely similar to the one for P++ (abrupt, done without any coordination with the author, goes into a vote with immediate effect, grossly misrepresents the idea while refusing to fix that even after the fact, pretends to be an RFC

Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote: Straw poll for P++ feasibility

2019-08-15 Thread Zeev Suraski
I did not intent to write anything else in this thread, but since someone reverted the edits I made to fix the description of the P++ idea in the poll, I have to. One of the many ways in which this poll was problematic is that it substantially misrepresents the idea - while claiming that this is

Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote: Straw poll for P++ feasibility

2019-08-14 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:14 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi, > > In the last week(s) there has been a lot of chat about Zeev's P++ idea. > Before we end up spending this project's time and energy to explore this > idea further, I thought it'd be wise to see if there is enough animo for > this.

Re: [PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ

2019-08-12 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Arnold Daniels wrote: > I've added a list of concerns to the FAQ. These are both taken from the > discussion as well as concerns I have myself. > Along the lines of the 'counterpoint' to short tags, I moved the concerns into a separate page here:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: P++: FAQ

2019-08-11 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:21 PM guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1- How would you envision a shared runtime between PHP and P++, in the > case that this new evolved solution decides to support objects as keys > in array structure? This fundamentally changes

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: P++: FAQ

2019-08-11 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:37 PM Andrea Faulds wrote: > Hi Zeev, > > As the person who initially proposed and implemented strict_types, I > think this is heading in the wrong direction. Perhaps that directive was > a mistake, if it will lead to so many attempts inspired by it to > fragment the

Re: [PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On 10 Aug 2019, at 1:51, Sara Golemon mailto:poll...@php.net>> wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:58 PM Zeev Suraski mailto:z...@php.net>> wrote: As Bob pointed out I'm rusty, but I do think that we can solve the short tags issue in this way. At the lexer level, if we see the

Re: [PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:03 AM Sara Golemon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:54 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > It's available here: https://wiki.php.net/pplusplus/faq > > > > > It's possible I missed something while on holiday. There are certainly a > lot of me

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: P++: FAQ

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:27 PM Mark Randall wrote: > On 09/08/2019 20:54, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > It's available here: https://wiki.php.net/pplusplus/faq > > I am now even more confused. > > How is this drastically different to Nikita's suggestion of setting a > compil

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
Bob, I appreciate your candid email. Please see responses below. On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:12 PM Bob Weinand wrote: > It's clearly quite a feat, your contributions to PHP 3 and PHP 4. > This does not give you any authority now. While I completely disagree, that is completely beside the

[PHP-DEV] P++: FAQ

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
During the discussion of the P++ proposal ( https://externals.io/message/106453), it became painfully clear that this idea did little, so far, to bring peace to the galaxy. However, based on a lot of the feedback, both on internals@ and elsewhere - it seems that a lot of people simply didn't

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:44 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language > to PHP. > > Zeev also wrote: > > It will take no additional resources, &

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
Sent from my tablet > On 9 Aug 2019, at 19:02, Mark Randall wrote: > >> On 09/08/2019 08:15, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> You seem to believe that C++ is inherently superior to C. And it's >> entirely within your right. >> However, there are projects - to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:12 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 21:17, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > My goal is to have two sister languages, with both PHP and P++ > > being equal among equals > > PHP internals is already lacking programming resources

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:22 AM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:25 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > I think this part is unrealistic from a simple manpower perspective. We > have something like ~2 full time developers working on PHP. Even if you can > rally some addi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:43 PM Michał Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've got an impression that you're the only one who sees a good direction > in splitting the language in two different dialects and am not sure about > sincere intentions. > This isn't splitting the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Robert Korulczyk wrote: > > I think it should also be pointed out that there's nothing stopping > anyone > > from forking PHP into a new project as Zeev described and maintain > feature > > parity. As I understand, the reason something like this hasn't happened >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:15 AM Michał Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > pt., 9 sie 2019, 09:40 użytkownik Sergey Panteleev > napisał: > > > As I understand, in P++ it was planned to drop the legacy code, add new > > functionality and painlessly implement BC. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergey Panteleev wrote: > As I understand, in P++ it was planned to drop the legacy code, Correct. > add new functionality Correct. > and painlessly implement BC. > Probably correct - but to phrase it more accurately - when we introduce P++ - we won't be

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
le mistake in some > edition, we don't need to take 10 years to fix it, we may even fix it in > the very next edition. > > Cheers > Joe > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 01:53, Mark Randall wrote: > > > On 09/08/2019 00:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-09 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:53 AM Mark Randall wrote: > On 09/08/2019 00:08, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > 2. Different people have different preferences. There's a reason that > not > > everyone is using the same language, or have the same mobile phone or the > > same car. Som

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:25 AM Mark Randall wrote: > On 08/08/2019 21:17, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > [... and not in the Sith Lord kind of way.] > > Thoughts? > > The idea of PHP being held hostage to eternal backwards compatibility > fills me with absolute dread. > [s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:22 AM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:02 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:17 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: >> >> This is basically what I have been advocating for a while now already, >> somewhat hidd

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:02 AM Nikita Popov wrote: > This is basically what I have been advocating for a while now already, > somewhat hidden between all the other noise of the "namespace-scoped > declares" thread. The model I would like to follow are Rust editions ( >

[PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
[... and not in the Sith Lord kind of way.] Looking at some of the recent (& not so recent) discussions on internals@, some of the recent proposals, as well as some of the statements made regarding the future direction of the language - makes it fairly clear that we have a growing sense of

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:35 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote: >> >> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:10 PM Bishop Bettini wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote: > > > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun. > > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20. > > > > A counter argument to this RFC is available at

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote: > I asked similar questions on Twitter, where Zeev replied the following: > https://mobile.twitter.com/zeevs/status/115865658046464 I want to add a bit of color to this tweet: - Estimated # of developers using PHP is at around 10M. This is based

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM Peter Kokot wrote: > Thank you for such a detailed response. Ok, I understand then. Then > next logical step here is - I would maybe want to use these awesome > short tags also then. No disrespect Peter, but I really don't think you understand (my position). I

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote: > Considering that you're in favor of keeping the short opening tag in > PHP "forever" because you haven't added any kind of other solution > either by now neither you see an issue with this... I think the worst > situation for language is that

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote: > > > > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that > > certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC. > > Please could you point to where this alleged rule

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On 7 Aug 2019, at 12:39, Christoph M. Becker mailto:cmbecke...@gmx.de>> wrote: As I understand it, this RFC has been put to vote again, because the first version had some problematic details, and by courtesy to cater to the clamor raised after the voting had finished. That is correct. There

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags, again

2019-08-06 Thread Zeev Suraski
> On 6 Aug 2019, at 21:46, Nikita Popov wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B. wrote: >> >> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun. >> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20. >> >> A counter argument to this RFC is available at >>

[PHP-DEV] Counterargument to Short Tags Deprecation (was: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Deprecate PHP's short open tags V2)

2019-08-05 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:05 PM G. P. B. wrote: > > I'd prefer Dan's approach and having a seperate page linked at the top of > the RFC. > > I'll start voting tomorrow and will link to your page in the same message > as the voting announcement. > Thanks George. I created a page with a

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Deprecate PHP's short open tags V2

2019-08-05 Thread Zeev Suraski
As we head closer to the vote - and in light of what I said towards the end of my message in https://externals.io/message/106256#106278, as well as the points Dan articulated regarding the current issue of negative feedback not getting the same level of visibility as the RFC itself - I'd like to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Improve visibility of RFC negative feedback

2019-08-05 Thread Zeev Suraski
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:34 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > So, recently there was some discussion about RFCs that have passed > despite there being some strong objections to them. > > I think there is a fundamental problem that could be addressed here, > in that the arguments 'for' an RFC have

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-31 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:09 PM guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > threat /THret/ noun: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, > injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for > something done or not done. > Exactly. If making people

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-31 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:31 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:50, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > This was not a threat of any kind, > > "If we need to pull rank with group@ here, we will." > > "I'm confident that if it ever came to that

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-31 Thread Zeev Suraski
I believe I addressed most of what you wrote in my reply to Nikita, except for this: On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:45 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:09, Zeev Suraski wrote: > If they do - it's absolutely their responsibility > > to defend their proposal > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-31 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:37 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > Zeev, > > Nikita, Similarly to how I answered Bob, I want to prefix my message with an off-topic statement that I think is important, albeit obvious. I think you're a remarkably talented developer that is an invaluable asset to the PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-30 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:30 PM Bob Weinand wrote: > > Am 30.07.2019 um 17:14 schrieb Zeev Suraski : > > > Zeev > Before I answer on point - I'd like to thank you that despite the fact you clearly disagree with me - you wrote your message in a courteous, respectful tone.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-30 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:10 PM Levi Morrison wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 10:55 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > I think ignoring people is totally acceptable behaviour on this list. May I > remind you that in the not distant past this list was called a toxic > kindergarten and othe

RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Explicit call-site send-by-ref syntax

2019-07-29 Thread Zeev Suraski
> I'm sorry Stas, but I will not be reading your mails in the future. I think > you mean > well and do raise legitimate points, but I have noticed over a long period of > time > that I find arguing with you to be extremely mentally exhaustive, while > ultimately deriving very little actionable

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Deprecate PHP's short open tags V2

2019-07-24 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:27 PM G. P. B. wrote: > Now if we can all agree that this can land without needing to go through > this > whole process I think everybody wins: we all don't need to spend time on > this, > it can be merged as it, the RMs could re-tag Beta 1 (which may will need to >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] Deprecate PHP's short open tags V2

2019-07-23 Thread Zeev Suraski
[Had an issue with my email client, apologies if it ends up being sent twice] On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:55 PM G. P. B. wrote: > Hello internals, > > Due to the controversy after the initial vote on the Deprecate PHP's Short > Open Tag RFC [1] here is a new RFC to deprecate them written with the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: hebrevc() and other 'contentious' 7.4 proposed deprecations

2019-07-17 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:07 AM G. P. B. wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 17:00, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. > wrote: > > > >> The RFC process establishes a consensus when 2/3 of the voters agree, &g

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: hebrevc() and other 'contentious' 7.4 proposed deprecations

2019-07-16 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:34 AM G. P. B. wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 16:18, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Secondly the word you are looking for here is "unanimity"/"unanimous" as > per the Cambridge dictionary [1]: > >> *If a group of people are unanimou

[PHP-DEV] Re: hebrevc() and other 'contentious' 7.4 proposed deprecations

2019-07-16 Thread Zeev Suraski
Given apparently nobody has paid any attention to this email (both in terms of my support of deprecating hebrevc(), and my request to reconsider supporting proposals with substantial numbers of 'nay' voters) - I'm resending it one more time for consideration: On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:33 PM

Re: [PHP-DEV] Stop replacing dots with underscores in query, post and cookie parameters for PHP 8?

2019-07-16 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 5:34 AM Bishop Bettini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:51 AM Nikita Popov wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:40 AM Arnold Daniels < > > arnold.adaniels...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > PHP replaces dots with underscores for $_GET, $_POST and

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for 7.4 - specifics

2019-07-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > > I'm certainly not a domain expert in RTL languages. I'd be happy to drop > hebrev() from this RFC if someone can bring forward a good technical > argument as to why these functions are still necessary and where they would > be used. > I do

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Voting opens for str_starts_with and ends_with functions

2019-07-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:53 PM Claude Pache wrote: > > > Le 8 juil. 2019 à 15:20, Christoph M. Becker a > écrit : > > > > FTR, there is already substr_compare(). > > `substr_compare()` (as well as `strncmp()` which I am currently using in > lieu of `str_starts_with()`) forces you to provides

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for 7.4 - specifics

2019-07-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:38 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:55 PM Zeev Suraski wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:28 PM Nikita Popov wrote: >> >>> I have now made the following changes to the RFC: >>> >&g

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for 7.4 - specifics

2019-07-08 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:28 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > I have now made the following changes to the RFC: > > * Removed enable_dl deprecation. The fact that dl() is currently available > by default on CGI, which is a server SAPI, makes this more dicey and needs > more careful consideration. As

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags

2019-06-22 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:55 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:53 PM Peter Kokot wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 20:56, Peter Kokot wrote: > > > > > > Not trying to rush anyone to something they have no energy working on > > > anymore here but what's the

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecations for 7.4

2019-06-22 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 10:23 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > Hi > Den lør. 22. jun. 2019 kl. 02.04 skrev Stanislav Malyshev < > smalys...@gmail.com>: > > My first question for many of those is - why? I.e. it deprecates a bunch > > of niche functions. Most people do not use these functions, so

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags

2019-05-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:21 AM G. P. B. wrote: > Evening internals, > > I am not going to go into the details of every email which got sent in the > past two days as I am busy with Exam revision. > I was also kind of busy, but more importantly I wanted to wait a bit before I reply - as my

Re: [PHP-DEV] open_basedir?

2019-05-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:25 PM Gert wrote: > Hello, > > If the plan is to remove it in 8.0, then i'd say its beneficial to already > deprecate it in 7.4. This will give users an earlier warning that these > upgrades need to happen. We should definitely deprecate it before removing it, if we

Re: [PHP-DEV] open_basedir?

2019-05-07 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:11 PM Nikita Popov wrote: > Hi internals, > > The open_basedir ini setting has two significant problems: > > 1. It is a major performance hit, because it disables the realpath cache. > That's true, but only if it's in use. That's kind of fair... > 2. Many people

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecate PHP's short open tags

2019-05-01 Thread Zeev Suraski
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:19 AM Peter Kokot wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 00:56, Stanislav Malyshev > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > Worth noting another inconsistency here that we've missed. PHP 7.4 has > > > introduced many BC breaks actually already. Without this level of > > > problems: > > >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >