Hey:
First of all, I don't want to make *that* thead longer...
as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of
document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.
I have to say, in my opinion it's totally ridiculous.
1. how many devers
Hey:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
First of all, I don't want to make *that* thead longer...
as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of
document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.
We didn't care about versions while it was a separate branch.
Changing to ZEND_ENGINE_3 makes full sense from my point of view.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
‘side effect’ of their apps running faster. So while we believe that
Maybe we should wait to see if PHP 7 gets chosen and jump to
ZEND_ENGINE_4? J
Another option would be to simply align the version number with that of
PHP. The separate version number dates back to 1999 where we thought we
may put this language engine into projects other than PHP, but I think
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
Hey:
First of all, I don't want to make *that* thead longer...
as you can see, some devers says critically phpng is lacking of
document, and they make that as the main reason for them to against
phpng.
I have
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the positive
‘side
Hi Laruence,
I do think that some people simply doesn't like phpng (for reasons mostly
not on technical grounds), and they are bringing up any issue which can
hinder the acceptance of phpng.
But I also think that documentation is important, and the reasoning that it
isn't based on the fact
2014.07.25. 9:52, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com ezt írta:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a major change to the language implementation, it does
not actually affect end users in any meaningful way except for the
positive
‘side
Hi Zeev,
Now we're into arguing semantics of the Voting RFC. Whether you meant
something else when you wrote that is now irrelevant, it's what is written
that is the rule, not somebodies individual interpretation surely? In any
meaning full way are your words, not what the accepted RFC states.
On 24/07/2014 15:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 24/07/2014):
Taking the example of XML, CSS, HTML, ECMAScript or other languages
(maybe the JVM, I don't know exactly), there is version numbers for
the specification, that are different of the version numbers of the
On 07/24/2014 09:13 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
Speaking of, I did just successfully subscribe myself to standards@
(without any trouble) using the direct ezmlm interface. Maybe they
were using the web form on php.net? I dunno. Maybe it's just PEBKAC
I just tried to subscribe to standards@
On 25/07/2014 10:52, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
On 07/24/2014 09:13 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
Speaking of, I did just successfully subscribe myself to standards@
(without any trouble) using the direct ezmlm interface. Maybe they
were using the web form on php.net? I dunno. Maybe it's just
Jocelyn,
I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry and
Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.
I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main people who work on PHP internals aren't exactly the book
authoring types...
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Jocelyn,
I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.
I think we'd all welcome a new edition of the Sara book, but it happens
that the main
On 25 July 2014 09:52, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
On 07/24/2014 09:13 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
Speaking of, I did just successfully subscribe myself to standards@
(without any trouble) using the direct ezmlm interface. Maybe they
were using the web form on php.net? I dunno.
On 23/07/2014 13:01, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
Regarding the change in behaviour, I think the patch
https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug=67064patch=bug67064-BCrevision=1402667581
should definitely be applied.
Currently the engine is doing magic stuff by modifying the parameters
that are
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 25/07/2014):
On 24/07/2014 15:40, Rowan Collins wrote:
Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa wrote (on 24/07/2014):
Taking the example of XML, CSS, HTML, ECMAScript or other languages
(maybe the JVM, I don't know exactly), there is version numbers for
the specification, that are
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Chris Wright c...@daverandom.com wrote:
On 25 July 2014 09:52, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
On 07/24/2014 09:13 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
Speaking of, I did just successfully subscribe myself to standards@
(without any trouble) using the
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Jocelyn,
I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.
I think
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Jocelyn,
I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and
I just voted on the next release name https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6. If
you have, too: thank you. If you haven't, I encourage you to do so.
The way voting works now, I happen to know which option is winning. I
happened to know that *before* I cast my vote. The current results are
posted on the
On 25/07/2014 13:17, Bishop Bettini wrote:
I propose that a poll's results tabulation be hidden until after the poll
closes to avoid this Bandwagon Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect. Otherwise, how do we know
the vote reflects just the presented arguments instead of the
Hi, all
Inspired by the link http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/, provided by Ferenc
Kovacs in the thread [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG document lacking argument,
I wondered why we don't gather useful links for internal PHP documentation
on the php.net website.
At the time I asked for material to
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Simon Schick simonsimc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi, all
Inspired by the link http://www.phpinternalsbook.com/, provided by Ferenc
Kovacs in the thread [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG document lacking argument,
I wondered why we don't gather useful links for internal PHP
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Jocelyn,
I think that a good migration guide is what we need here, and as Dmitry
and Ferenc said, much progress has been made there.
I think
I do think that some people simply doesn't like phpng (for reasons mostly
not
on technical grounds), and they are bringing up any issue which can hinder
the acceptance of phpng.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Ferenc. That's why I'm reluctant to
participate in this game.
Zeev
--
PHP
+1024... :-)
-邮件原件-
发件人: larue...@gmail.com [mailto:larue...@gmail.com] 代表 Laruence
发送时间: 2014年7月25日 14:57
收件人: PHP Internals
主题: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG document lacking argument
Hey:
First of all, I don't want to make *that* thead longer...
as you can see, some devers says
On 25 July 2014 14:14, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I do think that some people simply doesn't like phpng (for reasons mostly
not
on technical grounds), and they are bringing up any issue which can hinder
the acceptance of phpng.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Ferenc. That's why
Hi,
I tried the .deb package for phpng that Zend provides since yesterday
(thanks for that!) and I hit a memory consumption issue with the first
of my scripts I tried:
PHPNG:
Memory peak: 62914560 (55.97MB)
Elapsed time (s): 0.3383
PHP 5.5:
Memory peak: 1835008 (1.64MB)
Elapsed time (s):
On 25 July 2014 12:17, Bishop Bettini bis...@php.net wrote:
I just voted on the next release name https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php6. If
you have, too: thank you. If you haven't, I encourage you to do so.
The way voting works now, I happen to know which option is winning. I
happened to know
PHPNG seems good so far, I am tracking watching the develop git source . so to
me, it's good move faster than talking and talking.Talking is very cheap. The
code it self show us the stronger strength about the new Core.Why not we moving
faster ? Like facebook, they invest HHVM, how do you think
-Original Message-
From: JoshyPHP [mailto:php...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Ferenc Kovacs; Laruence; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP NG document lacking argument
On 25 July 2014 14:14, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I do
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 23.7.2014 um 22:33 schrieb Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
Hi!
It was a restriction to not support arrays in constant context. It seems
like nobody can remember why it was introduced.
My vague
The circumstances that surround the development of NG are very much in the
past now. Secret or not, it's done and we now have NG. This is a good
thing™ and
is not the subject of the debate nor a need for people to be apologising
for their hard work.
Ignoring the having a go items that appear to
Hey !
Just a quick word to launch the debate.
Disclamer : This is not a C vs C++ talk, thank you :-)
We nowadays support C89 officially . It is very stable and well implemented
in almost every compiler nowadays, but it is old and lack some features we
could benefit from.
Why not take PHP-Next
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Julien Pauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Hey !
Just a quick word to launch the debate.
Disclamer : This is not a C vs C++ talk, thank you :-)
We nowadays support C89 officially . It is very stable and well implemented
in almost every compiler nowadays, but it is
On 25 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
I think the main question here is whether MSVC will have good C99 support
by the time PHP-Next is released. The other major compilers (GCC, Clang,
Intel) may not support all of C99 (esp stuff like FP pragmas), but have a
On 2014-07-25, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 25 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
I think the main question here is whether MSVC will have good C99 support
by the time PHP-Next is released. The other major compilers (GCC, Clang,
Intel) may not support all of
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:37, Julien Pauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Why not take PHP-Next step to support a more recent version ?
Even C99 would be allright and C11 would be super cool (though pretty
recent).
I'd stop with C99 for now. One of PHP's strengths is that it builds
/anywhere/. I'd
Hi,
Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com hat am 20. Juli 2014 um 17:42
geschrieben:
[...]
Anyhow, I'd now like to see where we'd come out at and would kindly ask
you to
vote for or against inclusion of this feature:
On 25 Jul 2014, at 19:38, Timm Friebe p...@thekid.de wrote:
You're right, I forgot about adding an end date when I started the vote back
in
the End of June.
I've set the voting end to 2014-07-30. I think four weeks sounds like a
reasonable time frame.
Please don’t. Most RFCs are only
On 25 Jul 2014, at 19:42, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Please don’t. Most RFCs are only voted on for one or two weeks, that’s
perfectly fine for this RFC. It’s also not a terribly controversial one.
I’d suggest ending it next Friday.
Haha, disregard that, I can’t read.
--
Andrea
On 20 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Theodore Brown theodor...@outlook.com wrote:
The one remaining issue I have with this proposal is that boolean values are
currently accepted for every other scalar type except array. As with NULL,
FALSE is a common error value, and allowing booleans to be passed to
Hi!
After consulting with Anthony about this, the RFC and patch have been
updated to disallow booleans for int, float, numeric and string type
hints. The conversions table now looks like this:
This makes very little sense, 0 means the same as false is in many
contexts in PHP and also in many
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 23.7.2014 um 22:33 schrieb Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
Hi!
It was a restriction to not support arrays in constant context. It
On 25 Jul 2014, at 20:20, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
This makes very little sense, 0 means the same as false is in many
contexts in PHP and also in many languages.
It also means very different things in some places, particularly return values.
strpos returning 0 is most
Hi!
The point of this RFC is to strike a compromise that is generally
useful rather than helping one specific use case (strict hints) or
another (casts).
What you call compromise is the inconsistency - it's not strict
typing, it's not weak typing, it's half that and half this without any
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Sara Golemon p...@golemon.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:37, Julien Pauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
Why not take PHP-Next step to support a more recent version ?
Even C99 would be allright and C11 would be super cool (though pretty
recent).
I'd stop
On 25 July 2014 16:06, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I'd prefer that over a non-vague and very public character assassination
that me and others are experiencing instead.
I cannot comment on that statement but character assassination is bad
either way, sure.
I'm also wondering why you're
I'm sorry that this debate is hampered by personal attacks, vague
accusations
and clique mentality. I wish it will eventually rise above it. I wish
there were
fewer messages like this one and more about ways to remediate the
situation.
With that I absolutely agree so let's stop here.
Zeev
as I mentioned previously when you reported the issue, based on the
push reject message, you were trying to push to a subdirectory, where
you didn't have access (probably had something not merged upwards in
Zend/ or similar).
All my changes were under sapi/litespeed directory, did the same
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
PHP-5.6 is frozen for new features for a long time.
Adding new features after RC is not a good idea.
And we will need some kind of RFC and voting.
I agree here.
Bob, if you've been late proposing an RFC and couldn't get
Hi!
I just found that my commits to PHP-5.4.31 and PHP-5.5.15 branch have
been voided, the result is that in final 5.4.31 and 5.5.15 release
package, sapi/litespeed code is still the ancient V5.5 release, it is
ridiculous!
No, it is not ridiculous, it is the release process. The
Hi!
The way voting works now, I happen to know which option is winning. I
happened to know that *before* I cast my vote. The current results are
posted on the RFC, and the same information percolated into emails
encouraging folks to vote. I wonder, though, if knowing which was leading
and
All right, looks like it is my fault not making the reply sounds
critical enough. It pretty much make all third party php-litespeed rpms
useless, only causes trouble and confusion for LiteSpeed users.
Maybe the release branches should be only open to the RMs, save everyone
time and efforts
Hi!
client) I see no reason to keep the limitation in
the ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor() and allowing the
instantiation of internal classes will provide a clean upgrade path to
doctrine and co.
I think we should ensure the objects will be in safe (i.e. no-crashing)
state
Hi George,
is there any reason why seemingly you never read my original mail about
those branches beeing off-limit and those commit gonna be reverted?
http://news.php.net/php.cvs/79411
ps: we prefer bottom-posting on the php.net lists, and that hasn't changed
in the last couple of years.
On
Hi!
All right, looks like it is my fault not making the reply sounds
critical enough. It pretty much make all third party php-litespeed rpms
useless, only causes trouble and confusion for LiteSpeed users.
I'm not sure what changed with the last php release - the old code was
there for a
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
wrote:
Hi!
client) I see no reason to keep the limitation in
the ReflectionClass::newInstanceWithoutConstructor() and allowing the
instantiation of internal classes will provide a clean upgrade path to
doctrine and
Hey:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Pascal Chevrel pascal.chev...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
I tried the .deb package for phpng that Zend provides since yesterday
(thanks for that!) and I hit a memory consumption issue with the first of my
scripts I tried:
PHPNG:
Memory peak: 62914560 (55.97MB)
61 matches
Mail list logo
