Hi Internals,
It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
RFC procedure.
Thank you, Milo
Dne 26.11.2014 10:48, Miloslav Hůla napsal(a):
Good
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
So the main question is : *What version will we release next year
?*
Will we have a PHP 5.7, or jump directly to a 7.0 ?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Dec 12, 2014 9:34 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
So the main question is : *What version will we release next year ?*
Will we have a PHP 5.7, or jump directly to a 7.0 ?
Don't
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, George Bond wrote:
If you wanted an upgrade path that was not Evil (in the sense of not
introducing subtle and hard-to-diagnose bugs), could you not change
the operator to be *un*associative in PHP7? That would effectively
just make concrete the
Ok guys, sorry, but I am giving up on it.
I opened the PR in April and all the code necessary with technical
implications are done and registered on the PR. I brought the topic to this
email list in November as requested in the PR and almost 1 month after you
guys requested me to write a RFC. I
On Dec 15, 2014 11:53 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Dec 12, 2014 9:34 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Julien Pauli wrote:
So the main question is : *What version will we release next year ?*
Pierre Joye wrote on 15/12/2014 17:39:
I hate to say that but if we stick to rules, this rfc and its result are
totally invalid and should be canceled.
What a bonkers statement. Just because you don't agree it's not
totally invalid. I think 34 vs 2 is a pretty solid argument for
sticking to
On Dec 14, 2014, at 23:50, Leon Sorokin leeon...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/2014 10:45 PM, Robert Williams wrote:
I strongly suspect far more code would be *fixed* if the ternary operator
were changed to match what other languages do.
If you have 'incorrectly' functioning code today that
On 12 December 2014 at 23:19, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. Last (and probably least) - a 5.7 that breaks compatibility is
inconsistent with our version strategy, that suggests 5.7 should be fully
compatible with 5.6.
Whoa — I'm not talking about breaking compatibility. I'm talking
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Juan Basso jrba...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok guys, sorry, but I am giving up on it.
I opened the PR in April and all the code necessary with technical
implications are done and registered on the PR. I brought the topic to this
email list in November as requested in
Miloslav Hůla:
It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
RFC procedure.
It seems to me that it's customary to specify the voting period *in
On 15 December 2014 at 08:51, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
Yes, I disagree. It's a time thing. Let's all work on one thing instead
of *two*. Clearly you must see that there is not enough bandwidth? It
will also prevent people from oh we can get this into 5.7 nonsense.
It's not helpful,
Leon Sorokin wrote on 13/12/2014 22:45:
Hi guys,
I was wondering if 7.0 could be the version to fix the long-standing
incorrect ternary associativity bug in PHP [1]. This seems especially
worthy of reconsideration since the Null Coalesce RFC has been
accepted and merged [2] with the correct
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:08, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
Miloslav Hůla:
It is two weeks I opened the RFC voting. Even the responses are negative
for now, I would like to remind you to vote.
Because the amount of votes is low, I hope I didn't do some mistake in
RFC
Oh, thank you both. I added info that voting will be closed next Monday.
Thank you, Milo
Dne 15.12.2014 20:14, Andrea Faulds napsal(a):
On 15 Dec 2014, at 18:08, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote:
It seems to me that it's customary to specify the voting period *in
advance* (cf. other
-Original Message-
From: Adam Harvey [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:06 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
On 12 December 2014 at 23:19, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
3. Last (and
-Original Message-
From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
Behalf Of Adam Harvey
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the road to PHP 5.7 , or not ?
On 15 December 2014 at 08:51, Derick Rethans
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: a...@adamharvey.name [mailto:a...@adamharvey.name] On
Behalf Of Adam Harvey
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] On the
Hi!
The fact that it *may* break *some* code that is used somewhere despite
documentation recommending against it (pretty much deprecating it
already for years) is a terrible reason not to re-evaluate the situation
given the huge opportunity to correct this.
It *will* break some code.
Am 15.12.2014 20:43 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
The extra pain associated with migrating to an interim
version - that does nothing but spew warnings in the right places -and
obviously doesn't have any of the other features of 7 - doesn't seem to
be a
worthwhile experience for most
On 15/12/14 20:08, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
messages in 5.7:
1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
it (for example debian jessie has 5.6.2)
2, would allow us to stabilize 5.6 instead of keep
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
The fact that it *may* break *some* code that is used somewhere despite
documentation recommending against it (pretty much deprecating it
already for years) is a terrible reason not to re-evaluate the
On 12/15/2014 2:11 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
There's not that many breaking changes accepted, and each of them had to
be substantiated. We had other breaking changes is not a
substantiation. For example, most uses of associativity are wrong ones
- is, but that makes the idea of
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 21:08 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
messages in 5.7:
1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will miss
it (for example debian jessie has 5.6.2)
So you want Debian to upgrade to 5.7
Hi,
On 15 Dec 2014, at 23:32, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 21:08 +0100, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
there are two advantages for having 5.7 and having those deprecated
messages in 5.7:
1, if we introduce the deprecated message in 5.6.x, some people will
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released
at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
The hope is that we can put this to a vote in 2 weeks’ time
Hi Adam,
On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in
Hi,
I was looking at the documentation for DOMDocument::loadHTML() [1] that
mentions the following:
This function may also be called statically to load and create a DOMDocument
object. The static invocation may be used when no DOMDocument properties need
to be set prior to loading.
On 16 December 2014 00:56:43 GMT, Tjerk Meesters tjerk.meest...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at the documentation for DOMDocument::loadHTML() [1] that
mentions the following:
This function may also be called statically to load and create a
DOMDocument object. The static invocation may be
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Hi Adam,
On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
Thanks for the taking the
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a
very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features
On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
What world is this that you live in where every line of code that’s written is
fully unit-tested
You took my example too literally; forget the unit tests. Imagine the
situation differently:
1. Someone wrote this function:
function
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Leon Sorokin leeon...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
What world is this that you live in where every line of code that’s
written is fully unit-tested
You took my example too literally; forget the unit tests. Imagine the
Hi Xinchen,
On 16 Dec 2014, at 04:07, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a
very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Sara Golemon poll...@php.net wrote:
While playing around with Andrea's unicode literals syntax proposal, I
was reminded of just how little of ICU is exposed. I've put up a
short proposal for adding IntlChar exporting these APIs as static
methods (with a
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a
very simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be
released at the same time as PHP 7, with no new features whatsoever.
I am wondering why we need that? no new features
I think we can
Hi everyone,
On 16 Dec 2014, at 00:15, Adam Harvey ahar...@php.net wrote:
On 15 December 2014 at 16:09, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php57
Thanks for the taking the initiative on this.
On timing: I think we should release 5.7 in
Am 14.12.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Andrea Faulds:
Thoughts?
+1 for consistency :)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a very
simple RFC. It proposes a final minor version of PHP 5, PHP 5.7, to be released at
the same
Hi Matteo,
On 16 Dec 2014, at 07:52, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made a
very simple RFC.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
On 16/12/2014 05:07, Xinchen Hui wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Good evening,
There has been some debate about whether to make “PHP 5.7. I have made
a very simple RFC. It
41 matches
Mail list logo
