On March 16, 2015 11:10:41 PM GMT+01:00, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 17, 2015 7:05 AM, Peter Petermann ppeterman...@gmail.com
wrote:
On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel
pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
It's too late, Bob's Basic STH missed the schedule
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Mike Willbanks pen...@gmail.com wrote:
Let see how it looks if strict_types is renamed to raise_type_error
?php
declare(raise_type_error = 1);
function foo(int $a) {
// no function call here
}
?
The declare here
Le 16/03/2015 12:39, Xinchen Hui a écrit :
Hey:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
Hi Xinchen,
You can also not vote at all, that's a very valid option.
By voting yes, you say that you want PHP developers to have access to
STH in
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Pascal Chevrel pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
Le 16/03/2015 12:39, Xinchen Hui a écrit :
Hey:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
Hi Xinchen,
You can also not vote at all, that's a very valid
On 16 Mar 2015, at 11:16 pm, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how
Hi Pierre,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 6:46 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar
This RFC will have serious consequence. We made mistake with
safe_mode. The main reason it failed is it did not force caller to
have responsibility to make it work as it should. This RFC does the
same for how declare(strict_types=1) works.
Aren't we learned from safe_mode lessons?
I am
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also changes how your code
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
that means, I need
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
that means, I need to add a lots
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how code behaves was a good idea?
The problem is that there are two irreconcilable camps - some people
want weak STHs, other people want strict STHs.
This
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 6:46 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also changes how your code behave, but it's
global so that can be problematic.
On 16 March 2015 at 09:05, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
I don't like strict_types at all..
And you would never be forced to use them.
But you're voting against allowing anyone else to use them. :-(
cheers
Dan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM,
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:00 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
To be frank, I don't think I don't like this is a terribly good reason
to vote against (or for something). What is important is how
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
When I talked about the Dual Mode with some friends who are userland
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:50:16 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
I already showed real world example how this could be fail.
If we need this kind of behavior. I would suggest to have type affinity
like SQLite for
$_GET/$_POST/$_COOKIE.
https://www.sqlite.org/datatype3.html
This
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
This RFC will have serious consequence. We made mistake with
safe_mode. The main reason it failed is it did not force caller
to have responsibility to make it work as it should. This RFC does
the same for how declare(strict_types=1) works.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Nikita Nefedov inefe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:33:00 +0300, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
wrote:
Hi Derick,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
To be frank, I don't think I don't like this is a
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
And last comment, if there no such declare thing, I will definitely
vote yes to this RFC.
that's why I want vote no for this, and wait for Bob's Basic STH.
That will not be in PHP 7.0 though, as the deadline passed.
And I can probably bet on that
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
On 16 March 2015 at 11:49, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, think about it for a while - when some setting that changes
how code behaves was a good idea?
The problem is that there are two
On Mar 17, 2015 7:05 AM, Peter Petermann ppeterman...@gmail.com wrote:
On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel
pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
It's too late, Bob's Basic STH missed the schedule for PHP 7, it was
proposed way too late and the coercive STH RFC has just zero
On Mar 16, 2015 11:16 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for anyone who voted, but personally, if I could vote, I
would voted no - not because I don't want to block people from
getting what they want, but because I sincerely think that having ANY
setting that changes
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 11:16 PM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak for anyone who voted, but personally, if I could vote, I
would voted no - not because I don't want to block people from
getting what they
On Mar 16, 2015 11:07 PM, Jordi Boggiano j.boggi...@seld.be wrote:
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
ini_set('memory_limit', 10); also
Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Leverton lever...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
That is why I don't see it before (thousand times, too long to read...
but not in RFC)
It's in the RFC: Whether or not the function
Hi Yasuo,
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Caller _must_ satisfy callee requirements. This is simple principle to
write a secure code.
With this RFC, caller overrides security related setting. This means
scripts
that are prepared for type safety is ignored and it leads security
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
That is why I don't see it before (thousand times, too long to read...
but not in RFC)
It's in the RFC: Whether or not the function being called was
declared in a file that uses strict or weak type checking is
irrelevant. The
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Caller _must_ satisfy callee requirements. This is simple principle to
write a secure code.
With this RFC, caller overrides security related setting. This
Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 06:28 schrieb Xinchen Hui:
lib.php
?php
declare(strict_types = 1);
function add(int $a, int $b) {
}
?php
add($_GET['a'], $_GET['b']);
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
that means, I need to add a lots of (int) while I try to call a
function in a library which is not written
On Monday, March 16, 2015, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 16/03/2015 11:49, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
it's similiar to the safe_mode though. Sure, it's not as bad as INI
setting, but the intent is the same - a switch changing how code
behaves.
On March 16, 2015 2:32:39 PM GMT+01:00, Pascal Chevrel pascal.chev...@free.fr
wrote:
It's too late, Bob's Basic STH missed the schedule for PHP 7, it was
proposed way too late and the coercive STH RFC has just zero chance to
pass, it's too much of a BC break for everybody. The dual mode STH
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi all,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 06:28 schrieb Xinchen Hui:
lib.php
?php
declare(strict_types = 1);
function
On Mar 16, 2015 6:46 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz
wrote:
Am 16.03.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki:
Caller _must_ satisfy callee requirements. This is simple principle to
write a secure
On 16/03/15 06:22, Xinchen Hui wrote:
It's in the RFC: Whether or not the function being called was
declared in a file that uses strict or weak type checking is
irrelevant. The type checking mode depends on the file where the
function is called.
my fault, I must oversight of reading
Hi,
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
The most unaccept feature in current STH thing(v.5.0) is this.
acutaly, I believe in most applications, they will still keep this
off..
so why we introduce such thing?
beside this, I have a
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 16, 2015 4:29 PM, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
The most unaccept feature in current STH thing(v.5.0) is this.
acutaly, I believe in most applications, they will still keep this
Hey:
The most unaccept feature in current STH thing(v.5.0) is this.
acutaly, I believe in most applications, they will still keep this off..
so why we introduce such thing?
beside this, I have a question, which is not explained in the RFC:
lib.php
?php
Hello Xinchen,
Am 16.03.2015 um 06:28 schrieb Xinchen Hui:
lib.php
?php
declare(strict_types = 1);
function add(int $a, int $b) {
}
?php
add($_GET['a'], $_GET['b']);
that means, I need to add a lots of (int) while I try to call a
Hey:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Dennis Birkholz den...@birkholz.biz wrote:
Hello Xinchen,
Am 16.03.2015 um 06:28 schrieb Xinchen Hui:
lib.php
?php
declare(strict_types = 1);
function add(int $a, int $b) {
}
?php
add($_GET['a'],
45 matches
Mail list logo
