On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 20:02, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-07-12, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
is accepted or not does not matter as it will badly break BC. Unless
there is a patch allowing
Hi!
On 7/13/11 9:35 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
This thread is an excellent example why attempting to reach consensus
by discussing things is important.
Voting should be considered as an desperate last resort, not the
primary mechanism.
http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html has
On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 20:02, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-07-12, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
is accepted or not does not matter as
hi Hannes,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 20:02, David Soria Parra d...@php.net wrote:
On 2011-07-12, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and controlling
is actually working well, very well. As it is covered by the two
recently adopted RFCs.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is working well.
This particular change
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf syst...@php.net wrote:
On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and controlling
is actually working well, very well. As it is covered by the two
recently adopted RFCs.
I'm not sure how you
On 07/13/2011 11:17 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf syst...@php.net wrote:
On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and controlling
is actually working well, very well. As it is covered by the two
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:17 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf syst...@php.net wrote:
On 07/13/2011 10:30 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
I disagree and this exact issue shows that the voting and
On 07/13/2011 11:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Are you saying that widely approved thing are pointless or we could
have foreseen the results for each of them? Better to have a vote and
got a massive support than nothing and sit in the middle of nowhere
forever.
I'm saying that many of these in
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Are you saying that widely approved thing are pointless or we could
have foreseen the results for each of them? Better to have a vote and
got a massive support than nothing and
ah forgot to mention that indeed not all todos should have be done via
a RFC, that would not help us, not at all. But the primitive one, for
example, must have one.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Are you
On 07/13/2011 12:23 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 07/13/2011 11:50 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Are you saying that widely approved thing are pointless or we could
have foreseen the results for each of them? Better to have a vote
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
Right, but these folks that don't follow the discussions are the same 37
people who voted for the Primitives change. How is that helpful?
Many of the votes there are not from developers. We have explained
what happened
hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
is accepted or not does not matter as it will badly break BC. Unless
there is a patch allowing this change without affecting existing code
(main point being namespaced code working smoothly), this RFC should
be rejected.
On 12/07/11 11:09, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
Hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
is accepted or not does not matter as it will badly break BC. Unless
there is a patch allowing this change without affecting existing code
(main point being namespaced code
PS: I cannot change my vote on https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote, is it a
known issue?
if you don't have @php.net account, or 'voting' group membership in
the wiki, then you cannot vote, or change your vote.
this change was made yesterday to fix the issue that the technical
restriction for
On 12/07/11 12:12, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
PS: I cannot change my vote on https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote, is it a
known issue?
if you don't have @php.net account, or 'voting' group membership in
the wiki, then you cannot vote, or change your vote.
this change was made yesterday to fix the
Zitat von Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jan Schneider j...@horde.org wrote:
Zitat von Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
hi,
As I could agree on this fact, I can't find any
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:09:33 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC is
accepted or not does not matter as it will badly break BC. Unless there
is a patch allowing this change without affecting existing code (main
point being
On 2011-07-12, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 19:41 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:
E.g. Writing
class Evaluator {
public function eval() {
}
}
Does in no way create an ambiguity with the eval language construct
PHP implements.
On 2011-07-12, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As of now I do not think we should allow this change, whether the RFC
is accepted or not does not matter as it will badly break BC. Unless
there is a patch allowing this change without affecting existing code
(main point being
Zitat von Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As I could agree on this fact, I can't find any existing project
having int(eger), floatco as class, namespaced or not. Do you have
any example at hand?
Cheers,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jan Schneider j...@horde.org wrote:
Zitat von Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
hi,
As I could agree on this fact, I can't find any existing project
having int(eger), floatco as
On 11 July 2011 09:26, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jan Schneider j...@horde.org wrote:
Try that for String and it reveals a different picture. Horde 3 used that
too FWIW.
Jan.
Even the php5 versions of Horde? That's rather bad given the so
2011/6/17 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
[snip]
2. Make primitive type names reserved words (in case we ever want some form
of scalar typing or anything else with scalar types). Using them as
identifiers would return parse error for now. May have BC implications.
I am not sure it is a
There's going to be a ton of code in the wild that will break if primitive
types become reserved words.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.netwrote:
2011/6/17 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
[snip]
2. Make primitive type names reserved words (in case
Well, I generally think that PHP should be less strict about reserved
keywords. The number
of reserved keywords increases with every further release of PHP. For
example PHP 5.4
introduces trait and insteadof. PHP 5.3 introduced even more. Every new
keyword PHP
introduces both breaks old code and
Hi!
On 7/10/11 10:41 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
I don't know whether this is actually possible, but I've at least
already seen a patch
(http://pear.php.net/~greg/smarter_lexer.patch.txt) for the methodname
case linked
from a feature request (https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=28261).
If this patch
hi,
As I could agree on this fact, I can't find any existing project
having int(eger), floatco as class, namespaced or not. Do you have
any example at hand?
Cheers,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Patrick ALLAERT patrickalla...@php.net wrote:
2011/6/17 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As I could agree on this fact, I can't find any existing project
having int(eger), floatco as class, namespaced or not. Do you have
any example at hand?
Cheers,
Very good find of an inconsistency. Does the testsuite reveal something
strange with that patch?
Am 10.07.11 19:41 schrieb Nikita Popov unter nikita@googlemail.com:
Well, I generally think that PHP should be less strict about reserved
keywords. The number
of reserved keywords increases with
ZF and ODM do it and inside namespace. We should be sure that these
cases still work, as NS exists for this exact purpose.
Cheers,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
As I could
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Lars Strojny l...@strojny.net wrote:
Very good find of an inconsistency. Does the testsuite reveal something
strange with that patch?
I didn't test that patch, just found it in the bugtracker.
cel...@php.net would be a better person to ask, as he wrote it.
Hi everybody,
Attached is the patch against current trunk with a testcase, tokenizer
tests do not break. If nobody objects, could somebody with commit access
to Zend could commit this patch?
With regards,
Lars
Am 10.07.11 23:51 schrieb Nikita Popov unter nikita@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jul
And again, as .txt
Am 11.07.11 00:36 schrieb Lars Strojny unter l...@strojny.net:
Hi everybody,
Attached is the patch against current trunk with a testcase, tokenizer
tests do not break. If nobody objects, could somebody with commit access
to Zend could commit this patch?
With regards,
Lars
Hi,
2011/7/10 Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Lars Strojny l...@strojny.net wrote:
Very good find of an inconsistency. Does the testsuite reveal something
strange with that patch?
I didn't test that patch, just found it in the bugtracker.
2011/7/10 Lars Strojny l...@strojny.net:
Hi everybody,
Attached is the patch against current trunk with a testcase, tokenizer
tests do not break. If nobody objects, could somebody with commit access
to Zend could commit this patch?
Wait, wait.
Tokenizer surely is broken, it will identify a
Hi Felipe,
Am 11.07.11 00:41 schrieb Felipe Pena unter felipe...@gmail.com:
I'm against this patch, because we will just add more inconsistency.
Allow reserved words in method name, OK. But what about class
name/namespace name etc?
Good argument, namespace names and class names should be
Hi,
2011/7/10 Lars Strojny l...@strojny.net:
Hi Felipe,
Am 11.07.11 00:41 schrieb Felipe Pena unter felipe...@gmail.com:
I'm against this patch, because we will just add more inconsistency.
Allow reserved words in method name, OK. But what about class
name/namespace name etc?
Good argument,
Hi!
On 7/10/11 4:07 PM, Felipe Pena wrote:
To handle the class name in a method call turn out tricky. For example:
include::list();
Agreed, class names would be trouble. Same with any token that can be
first in the expression/statement. However, I think methods might be
relatively safe, if
40 matches
Mail list logo
