On 22/05/15 01:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a
void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this
I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having
note in the docs for people
Hi,
I think that not reserving void by spec now is actually going against the
Request For Comments process. If we don't soft reserve now we won't even
have the possibility to discuss it later, this kills the discussion before
it starts.
The soft reservation has zero impact over PHP7.0, no one
On May 21, 2015 6:45 PM, flaupre...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
De: Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com
For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric,
so
that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x
release.
Soft here means that we only document these
Hi,
De: Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com
For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so
that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release.
Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and
don't throw an error when
Hi!
I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce a
void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this
I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having
note in the docs for people not to name their classes void (not that
On May 22, 2015 7:20 AM, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to add void to this list, so we have the option to introduce
a
void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether
this
I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to
Hi internals!
For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so
that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release.
Soft here means that we only document these names as being reserved and
don't throw an error when they're used.
I'd like to add void to
+1
On 19 May 2015 at 17:16, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
typename RFC were unanimous.
Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals!
For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like numeric, so
that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release.
Soft here means that we only document these names as being
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
typename RFC were unanimous.
Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
typename RFC were unanimous.
Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to
I strongly disagree with this action. These types required an RFC; why
should this be different? Also note that neither of the reserve
typename RFC were unanimous.
Furthermore, we are past the RFC stage. We are *supposed to already
have an alpha* by now and we are proposing new changes?. Please
On 19 May 2015 17:21:58 BST, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
On a related note it is unclear what BC breaks are exactly allowed in
minor releases. Adding new reserved types is a BC break, but it was
done in PHP 5.4 with `callable`. We should solidify what we do and do
not allow in minor
14 matches
Mail list logo
