Hi!
right .. lets not forget the original goal (though it hasnt been
perfectly defined)
the idea was to move common validation code out of the function body to
reduce code, increase readability and enable IDE's to be even smarter.
I think while intent is good (avoiding repetitive code) the
Hi!
This would be the perfect pairing. A library utilizing strict/enforced
types would surely want to indicate explicitly the return type.
To what use? PHP can't do static type checking, and for dynamic checking
specifying the type is useless - it's zval that gets checked, not the
On 10.07.2009, at 19:58, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
right .. lets not forget the original goal (though it hasnt been
perfectly defined)
the idea was to move common validation code out of the function
body to
reduce code, increase readability and enable IDE's to be even
smarter.
I
All,
I think that we should revisit the options on the table. I have a
feeling that much like many people didn't realize they're voting to
bring this into 5.3 - many weren't fully aware of the options on the
table and their implications (to be clear - I'm sure some were, but I
think many
Hi Zeev,
I've been keeping a very close eye, and have taken part in a good few
discussions, including putting my own idea on the table.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zeev Suraskiz...@zend.com wrote:
The options as I see them:
1. Do nothing. I think the vote established that this is not
On 09.07.2009, at 02:28, troels knak-nielsen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Markmark...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would be highly in favor of adding type hinting/casting
BUT with the benifit that php actually becomes faster if you do
things
like that. Afterall you can use way
At 11:39 09/07/2009, Paul Biggar wrote:
I believe nearly all opinions voiced have wanted the current patch.
Many more were in favour of strict typing only, but for the few
dissenters, like myself, Ilia included casting semantics using (int)
syntax.
I think that many of the people who expressed
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Zeev Suraskiz...@zend.com wrote:
I believe that
if we had a 'clean' Weak typing RFC as well as a Strict typing RFC, each
with its pros and cons - there would be very different results.
The two approaches were never compared head-to-head, with the pros and cons
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Zeev Suraski [mailto:z...@zend.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 9 juli 2009 11:46
Aan: Paul Biggar
CC: internals@lists.php.net
Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion
At 11:39 09/07/2009, Paul Biggar wrote:
I believe nearly all
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:31:49PM +0200, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
Since the votes seem to switch to 6.0 instead of 5.3, would it be
feasible to throw an E_DEPRECATED in 5.3.1 if one declares a
function/class called int/bool/object/whatever ?
+1
We *must* think about the transition.
Just
Hi Dennis,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Dennis Haarbrinkden...@born05.nl wrote:
The most important thing is that it is _optional_, you have the _choice_ to
use it.
Sorry to go a little bit off-topic, but this idea has been bandied
around a lot over the last week, and I'd like to respond to
2009/7/9 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Two other issues that we need to revisit:
1. Agree on when it will be implemented - I think it's pretty clear it
should not go to 5.3.
What would be the impact including this feature (once it is
*technically* fine for everybody) in 5.3 code with #ifdef's
On 09.07.2009, at 13:10, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
2009/7/9 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Two other issues that we need to revisit:
1. Agree on when it will be implemented - I think it's pretty
clear it
should not go to 5.3.
What would be the impact including this feature (once it is
On 09.07.2009, at 12:49, Dennis Haarbrink wrote:
I'm a framework developer and I have great interest in type hinting/
casting.
I'm all for clarity and strictness, but it should definitely be a
choice.
PHP is known for its easy learning curve, that is one of its big
powers and
that should
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dennis Haarbrinkden...@born05.nl wrote:
I mean, libraries may have all kinds of quirks, you may not be satisfied with
the supplied API or maybe even the entire philosophy behind it, but that
shouldn't stop you from using it or is it?
You must learn what these
Hi Paul,
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Paul Biggar [mailto:paul.big...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 9 juli 2009 13:03
Aan: Dennis Haarbrink
CC: internals@lists.php.net
Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion
Although the proposed checks are optional
Zeev Suraski wrote:
We need to go back to the fundamentals - and look for use cases where
strict typing would be substantially superior to weak typing.
I whole-heartedly agree. I can see some benefits of having weak typing
(even though I'm not desperate for it) and think it would better fit PHP
Lukas,
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:m...@pooteeweet.org]
Verzonden: donderdag 9 juli 2009 14:01
Aan: Dennis Haarbrink
CC: internals@lists.php.net
Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion
I think you misunderstood Zeev. He
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Paul Biggar [mailto:paul.big...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 9 juli 2009 14:40
Aan: Dennis Haarbrink
CC: internals@lists.php.net
Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] Type hinting - Request for Discussion
You must learn what these quirks are. Likewise, every
On 09.07.2009, at 10:39, Paul Biggar wrote:
I think we can take Lukas's RFC and either change it or write
something
based on it for weak typing only. If people here find it useful
I'll go
ahead and do that.
I believe people don't want this. I wrote a set of rules, Lukas wrote
the RFC,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smithm...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
Actually, in terms of weak typing we are now at 4 supporters of the general
idea:
Paul B.,
Better make that 3 supporters. After seeing how complicated it was to
explain the semantics of a sensible middle, I think the
I want to remind everyone that this discussion is inadvertently sabotaging
the work/schedule of maintenance 5.3.x point releases, which we actually
need, for the 5.3 branch get to a point where it's stable enough to be used
in production.
So, knowing this can go on forever, it's time to pick
Hi list.
In advance, sorry for muddying the waters even further.
Following the current discussion about typehints to primitives, I'm
wondering if anyone have ever suggested to include some sort of
user-land contract system, such as the one that exists in
plt-scheme[1]
Given the dynamic nature
Hi!
Actually, in terms of weak typing we are now at 4 supporters of the
general idea:
Count me in, then :)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
s...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: s...@zend.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
On 9 Jul 2009, at 18:20, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 09.07.2009, at 10:39, Paul Biggar wrote:
I think we can take Lukas's RFC and either change it or write
something
based on it for weak typing only. If people here find it useful
I'll go
ahead and do that.
I believe people don't want
Hi!
I am a userland developer, so please take my advice with caution. I am not
aware of the consequences of any of the implementations from an internals
point of view. However, since the main question here seems to be strict
against weak typing, or casting, I feel I should voice my opinion.
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
1) It covers all the use cases for a type-based system (You can use
`is_integer` as a contract, if you want that)
2) It's extensible in user-space, which means that it can be used to
convey much more accurate information, relevant to the application
needs.
3) It's
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Josh
Thompsonspam.goes.in.h...@gmail.com wrote:
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
- How do you know if it is a contract or the current object type hint?
The simplest solution would be to make one take precedence. You're not
likely to have both a class and a function
troels knak-nielsen wrote:
- How do you know if it is a contract or the current object type hint?
The simplest solution would be to make one take precedence. You're not
likely to have both a class and a function with the same name, and if
you do, you kind of had it coming to you. For
All:
I'm in favor of this so-called Weak typing Zeev has proposed as
well, but I would like to see it become available in PHP before PHP 6.
That doesn't mean it has to go into 5.3.x, but I don't see why there
can't be a 5.4 that includes it. Personally, I think primitive typing
has a much more
-1 for 5.3
0 for 5.x (if there ever will be one)
+1 for 6.0
On 7.7.2009 2:52 Uhr, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major
2009/7/8 Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org:
All of the identified issues can be resolved and none of them represent a
major challenge to address. However, if there is no consensus to put this in
OK, but you had not said you would resolve them. I would appreciate
some detail on what you will do
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be very for adding something
On 08.07.2009, at 10:25, Paul Biggar wrote:
- wait for Lukas to finish what he's doing
- new vote, more options (5.3.x/5.4/6.0, Lukas'/yours, make it clear
what we're voting for)
Do not wait for me. I have decided it doesn't make sense for me to
write this RFC. There was essentially
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be very
At 21:38 07/07/2009, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
-1 on 5.3. The window for adding new major features to 5.3 is obviously
long gone. Not sure why you are even suggesting it.
+0 on parts of it for the next major release. You still haven't
convinced me that strict type checking won't cause more
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 7-Jul-09, at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, and I think
consensus
Jani Taskinen wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 7-Jul-09, at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me,
1) The patch introduce several new reserved words (resource, numeric,
scalar, object). This may break existing applications which use these
names as function or class names.
2) The patch should define something like ZEND_ARG_TYPE_INFO()
3) do we really need IS_CLASS constant?
4)
2) The patch should define something like ZEND_ARG_TYPE_INFO()
Yeah, that can be used or existing macros can be retained using type
parameter, which can even made BC compliant by using new sets of
constants that match the IS_ARRAY or not hint semantics.
3) do we really need IS_CLASS
Hi.
On 08.07.2009 12:11 Uhr, Steven Van Poeck wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
With this logic, we got a PHP 5.3 as well, and with the same logic
there will be a PHP 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and we never get to 6. Instead of
putting stuff in PHP 5.4 (which at the moment is *not* planned), why
not focus all
Aside: I'd like to propose an internals-specific mutation of Godwin's
law, which might state:
As a PHP internals discussion thread grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Perl 6 approaches 1.
JG
On 07/07/09 6:14 PM, Wez Furlong wrote:
-1 for 5.x
+1 for 6.0
Otherwise the
On Mon, July 6, 2009 7:52 pm, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
Since then the patch has been revised to address the major concerns
that were identified (breakage of binary
Hi!
Only because there is a class hint (currently supported) function foo
(StdClass $foo) {} and there was a request to support a generic object
hint. So one became IS_CLASS and one is IS_OBJECT.
I'd say IS_OBJECT can fit both - we could treat empty class name as any
object.
--
Stanislav
Hi!
One more thing: It seems there is no reason not to simply commit it to
HEAD. That's the development branch, if the thing isn't good, it can be
Erm, I was under impression that development branch is for developing
new functionalities which were agreed on, not for committing any code
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Stanislav Malyshevs...@zend.com wrote:
Hi!
One more thing: It seems there is no reason not to simply commit it to
HEAD. That's the development branch, if the thing isn't good, it can be
Erm, I was under impression that development branch is for developing new
Since the votes seem to switch to 6.0 instead of 5.3, would it be
feasible to throw an E_DEPRECATED in 5.3.1 if one declares a
function/class called int/bool/object/whatever ?
Just throwing the idea in the wild since I am not able to assess if
that's doable, but it might be a good idea to add it
On 7 Jul 2009, at 02:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away
(either one is fine btw). To keep the process simple flamewar
free, please restrict yourself to +/- (1/0), next
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch
has been revised to address the major concerns that were identified
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM, George Antoniadisgeo...@noodles.gr wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Markmark...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally would be highly in favor of adding type hinting/casting
BUT with the benifit that php actually becomes faster if you do things
like that. Afterall you can use way more effective c code if you know
what you expect right?
On Monday, July 6, 2009, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified (breakage
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is fine
btw). To keep the process simple flamewar free, please restrict
yourself to +/- (1/0), next week monday I'll run a tally of
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified (breakage of
binary
+1
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is fine
btw). To keep the process simple flamewar free, please restrict
yourself to +/- (1/0), next week monday I'll run a tally of
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 02:52, Ilia Alshanetskyi...@prohost.org wrote:
The final patch is available here: http://ilia.ws/patch/type_hint_53_v2.txt
The test suit is available here: http://ia.gd/patch/type_hint_tests.tar.bz2
+1
-Hannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
+1
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
+1
Patrick Allaert
---
http://code.google.com/p/peclapm/ - Alternative PHP Monitor
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
+1
--
Slan,
David
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 06/07/09 20:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The final patch is available here: http://ilia.ws/patch/type_hint_53_v2.txt
The test suit is available here: http://ia.gd/patch/type_hint_tests.tar.bz2
+1
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
2009/7/7 Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified (breakage of
binary
+1 from me
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch
has been revised to address the major concerns that were
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
[..]
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is fine
btw).
+1
[..]
- Mark
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
2009/7/7 Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified (breakage of
binary
-1 for 5.x
+1 for 6.0
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away
(either one is fine btw). To keep the process simple flamewar
free, please restrict yourself to +/- (1/0), next week monday I'll
run a tally of the votes and based
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away
(either one is fine btw).
I don't want to start a long discussion, but IMO this and other major
language changes doen't belong in a point release of 5.3.x (whether
+1
On Jul 6, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
Since then the patch has been revised to address the major concerns
that were identified (breakage of
Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:
+1
Just to be clear, my vote was for putting this into (PHP_5_3) + 1, not
into PHP 5.3.1.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals -
that vote is for anything coming after 5.3.x (be 5.4 or 6.x), did not
see the 5.3 only requirement (which makes no sense).
I'm generally -1 on any major change for 5.3.x.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Pierre Joyepierre@gmail.com wrote:
+1
--
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net |
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major concerns that were
identified (breakage of binary compatibility) as well extended
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether
it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is
fine btw). To keep the process simple flamewar free, please restrict
yourself to +/- (1/0), next week monday I'll run a tally of
On 07/07/09 10:17 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether
it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is
fine btw). To keep the process simple flamewar free, please
restrict yourself to +/-
Hi,
I am -1 on the inclusion of cast support. IMHO this part isnt thought
out and was just thrown in to silence those who feel that there is a
use case for non strict type hinting. But in that case I might as well
leave the type cast in the API calling code. The number of characters
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smithm...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
B) foo($bar);
function bar((int) $bar) {}
What am I really saying with B)?
I don't care what you give me, I am going to use it as an int anyways?
Exactly. Very simple. I would phrase it as I'll accept anything and
On 07.07.2009, at 20:04, Paul Biggar wrote:
Of course I am also quite opposed to sticking this into 5.3.
On which grounds? If you don't like the feature, please cast a -1
That adding language syntax sugar anything but a major or minor
release is a bad idea.
And this even if Ilia does
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major concerns that were
identified (breakage of binary compatibility) as well extended
On 7-Jul-09, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Griffiths wrote:
On 07/07/09 10:17 AM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether
it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one
is
fine btw). To keep the process
Paul Biggar wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smithm...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
B) foo($bar);
function bar((int) $bar) {}
What am I really saying with B)?
I don't care what you give me, I am going to use it as an int anyways?
Exactly. Very simple. I would phrase it as I'll
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
PHP 6 is too far off in a practical sense (sorry Andrei) from the time
where I can see myself using it in production or other people benefiting
from this function. The (simpler) variant of provided patch is what is
currently being used on production, if it can go into
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away
(either one is fine btw). To keep the process simple flamewar
free, please restrict yourself to +/- (1/0), next
+1 for HEAD and 5.3
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Gwynne Raskindgwy...@darkrainfall.org wrote:
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is fine
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 20:52 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
Since then the patch has been revised to address the major concerns
that were identified (breakage of
2009/7/7 Johannes Schlüter johan...@php.net:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 20:52 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
Having an old 5.3 extension with a typehint expecting an
Paul Biggar wrote:
- the RFC process has been wilfully ignored (despite multiple requests)
For me it is pretty hard to take a major feature for 5.3 RFC seriously
when it comes a week after we finally get 5.3 out the door.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
All of the identified issues can be resolved and none of them
represent a major challenge to address. However, if there is no
consensus to put this in the near future (which at this point is 5.3),
I have hard time justifying spending further time on this. The
original patch that was
Rasmus,
Well, 5.3 has been in feature lock for quite some time, its not like
its been a week or two since we went from features in phase to
stabilization phase.
On 7-Jul-09, at 7:14 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Paul Biggar wrote:
- the RFC process has been wilfully ignored (despite
Andrei,
PHP represents a major change on every aspect of the language, I think
you gotta appreciate it that even if it were to be released today
there would be sometime before it can certified as production ready in
terms of stability and performance. I'd go on a limb and say that PHP6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/07/2009 02:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major concerns
-1
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be very for adding something similar to this patch in a PHP 5.4
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, and I think
consensus is building that we aren't going to add this to 5.3.
I think half the
-1 for 5.x
+1 for 6.0
Otherwise the Perl 6 guys will starting making their own jokes about
being released before PHP 6.
--Wez.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ilia Alshanetskyi...@prohost.org wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 08:52, Ilia Alshanetskyi...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified
On 7-Jul-09, at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3
release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, and I think
consensus is building that we
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
Since then the patch has been revised to address the major concerns
that were identified (breakage of binary compatibility) as well
extended with additional
2009/7/6 Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of whether it
makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away (either one is fine btw).
To keep the process simple flamewar free, please restrict yourself to +/-
(1/0), next week monday
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ilia Alshanetskyi...@prohost.org wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
been revised to address the major concerns that were identified
201 - 300 of 596 matches
Mail list logo
