Johannes Ott wrote:
I tried to get some RFC karma for my wiki account, following those lines:
Email internals@lists.php.net requesting RFC karma for your wiki
account. In the email, remind people about the RFC you plan to create.
Note that RFC karma does not automatically give you karma to
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
As you already said, there's no acceptation date on that site, but it
seems that new accounts are appended to the end of the list -
http://people.php.net/?page=33
Probably better than
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Scott Arciszewski sc...@arciszewski.me wrote:
Pavel_Kouřil wrote:
- It is a setting that changes the language's behavior; I don't
think that it matters whether or not it would be an INI setting or the
declare() one, because both of them are bad.
It allows
What is the minimum version of GCC required to build PHP?
I am asking because using GCC 2.95.3 and GCC 3.4.0 I get errors related
to the usage of intptr_t (see http://pastebin.com/9Gn0AAXA).
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull
Am 14.03.2015 um 00:44 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Zeev,
If I put it into vote until Sunday, we're breaking the voting process.
Which
required an apt discussion phase which definitely isn't given when we
start
Sunday.
Bob,
I do see it differently but obviously very much
On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There
Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma?
http://people.php.net
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
Oh, sorry! I thought it reads something like “Account opened: Y-m-d” but that’s
on the PECL
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom I discussed
the reasons he voted against the Coercive RFC - I
On Mar 15, 2015 6:23 AM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2015 at 08:42, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, per-file is better than ini setting, but better doesn't mean
good (because it is still
On 15 March 2015 at 00:54, Niklas Keller m...@kelunik.com wrote:
Morning,
I'd like to announce that I'll open the vote for the in operator later that
day.
You can find the RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/in_operator
We've discussed this elsewhere and the RFC is still lacking one thing
-
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw - no
kguest - yes
kk - no
nohn - no
oliver - yes
Hi Michael,
On 15 March 2015 at 14:29, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how
many did not vote before STHv0.3?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
Hi
2015-03-14 6:41 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
RFC Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7
The proposal has changed from the original. It no longer reserves the
aliases out of the
Hey, to clarify what the way to go with this RFC is.
This RFC is a FALLBACK. It's about the common part of both other RFCs.
That way it *only* will go to vote after Anthonys RFC ends. And *only* if it
fails.
That means, I will go by the voting RFC and wait until discussion period ends
and put
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I ran some
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli -
Hi
2015-03-14 6:41 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
RFC Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7
The proposal has changed from the original. It no longer reserves the
aliases out of the interest of reserving the smallest useful,
uncontroversial subset. Some people
Philip Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
пт, 13 Мар 2015, 23:01, Philip Sturgeon pjsturg...@gmail.com:
Pavel,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Pavel
On 15 03 2015, at 16:36, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
I am asking because using GCC 2.95.3 and GCC 3.4.0 I get errors related
to the usage of intptr_t (see http://pastebin.com/9Gn0AAXA).
Over in Room 11, Michael just
On 15.03.2015 16:44, Pádraic Brady wrote:
I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing
voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the
current RFCs. Merely noting that their
On 15 03 2015, at 17:09, Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com wrote:
Hi List,
The 'Constructor behaviour of internal classes' RFC is now in voting.
Please note, it's the coding standard that is being voted on. If
anyone thinks I've implemented the changes in a way that is less
awesome
Hi Matteo,
On 15 March 2015 at 10:29, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I do know a little about security, but I am not a crypto-expert
by any means. If I'm saying something silly, just let me know ;)
I want to vote yes, but naming is something that scares me a bit. Without
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
So - are you saying that it would be easy to remove this feature from
the language once people would realize it's register_globals (and any
other settings that change how code behaves) all over again?
Actually, it would
On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the
Am 15.03.2015 um 15:34 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
I am asking because using GCC 2.95.3 and GCC 3.4.0 I get errors related
to the usage of intptr_t (see http://pastebin.com/9Gn0AAXA).
Over in Room 11, Michael just pointed out that this could be related
to php_stdint.h.
--
PHP Internals -
Hi internals!
To ensure we have no shortage of new RFC votes...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#vote
Voting is open for ten days :)
Thanks,
Nikita
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
On 03/15/2015 07:31 AM, Philip Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 14.03.2015 um 10:21 schrieb Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Levi
Hi List,
The 'Constructor behaviour of internal classes' RFC is now in voting.
Please note, it's the coding standard that is being voted on. If
anyone thinks I've implemented the changes in a way that is less
awesome then there is no reason the changes couldn't be improved.
Additionally, while
Hi,
I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC
breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls. So I
decided to drop the current voting, while it's still on the beginning, to
properly update the RFC. We had 7 votes computed - 4 yes and 3 no
Voting just started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_ob
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_ob
I’ll close the poll in a week.
Thanks,
Mike
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 14.03.2015 um 10:21 schrieb Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
RFC Link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reserve_more_types_in_php_7
The proposal has changed
Respin of my patch for https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68486 is now available
as a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/bof/15173c7a11cb12a7b96f
Some comments on the respin are in the bug report at [2015-03-15 10:17 UTC]
Debug cruft has been removed, and as far as my brain can make out this is
On 15 March 2015 at 08:42, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, per-file is better than ini setting, but better doesn't mean
good (because it is still a pretty bad approach). The ini setting at
least has the option to be turned off in code once everyone realizes
it was a bad idea
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2015 at 08:42, Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, per-file is better than ini setting, but better doesn't mean
good (because it is still a pretty bad approach). The ini setting at
least has the option to be
I think I now get the misunderstanding I had on your destructor question
Sorry for confusion. My points are agnostic about implementation details
and concrete code. It's up to ppl to use this feature as they like.
- first point is a logical conclusion: If there is a cctor, there should
be
Am 15.03.2015 um 11:02 schrieb Crypto Compress:
I think I now get the misunderstanding I had on your destructor question
Sorry for confusion. My points are agnostic about implementation details
and concrete code. It's up to ppl to use this feature as they like.
Okay get your point, but
On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC
breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls.
Please can you stop abusing the RFC process?
This RFC is attempting to
Foo::bar(); // OK
['Foo', 'bar'](); // OK
'Foo::bar'(); // FATAL ERROR
Hi,
does this topic need to be addressed before PHP7 goes feature freeze? Or is
it a bugfix? (Julien already provided a patch)
I'm not familiar with writing RFCs. I fear I won't be able to handle it on
schedule if one
Am 15.03.2015 um 08:07 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
So who will draft the RFC for
* Introduce a Throwable interface
* Let Exception implement the Throwable interface
* Introduce an Error class that implements the Throwable interface
* Use Error class as base class for exceptions
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Julien Pauli jpa...@php.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Nikita Popov wrote:
I would like to propose reclassifying our few existing E_STRICT
notices and removing this error category:
Am 15.03.2015 11:20 schrieb Patrick Schaaf p...@bof.de:
Respin of my patch for https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68486 is now
available
as a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/bof/15173c7a11cb12a7b96f
Some comments on the respin are in the bug report at [2015-03-15 10:17
UTC]
Debug cruft
Am 27.02.2015 um 15:47 schrieb Jordi Boggiano:
quickly draft another RFC to amend that part
So who will draft the RFC for
* Introduce a Throwable interface
* Let Exception implement the Throwable interface
* Introduce an Error class that implements the Throwable interface
* Use
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Sebastian Bergmann sebast...@php.net wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 08:07 schrieb Sebastian Bergmann:
So who will draft the RFC for
* Introduce a Throwable interface
* Let Exception implement the Throwable interface
* Introduce an Error class that
2015-03-15 3:34 GMT+01:00 Stanislav Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com:
Hi!
I'd like to announce that I'll open the vote for the in operator later that
day.
You can find the RFC here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/in_operator
I think this operator is unnecessary - we already have perfectly good
On 15/03/2015 04:23, Sammy Kaye Powers wrote:
A two week discussion period has been held for the reliable user-land
CSPRNG RFC to add `random_bytes()` and `random_int()`. The RFC has now been
moved into voting.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/easy_userland_csprng
There was some discussion of
Am 13.03.2015 um 01:33 schrieb Christoph Becker:
Johannes Ott wrote:
And i although see no DI or Singleton pattern to use here to get the
same functionality, if you want to use like Config::getHostname() and
not like Config::getInstance()-getHostname() which is really
unnecessary
On 15.03.15 16:46, Nikita Popov wrote:
To ensure we have no shortage of new RFC votes...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#vote
Voting is open for ten days :)
From the RFC:
Signature mismatch during inheritance
...
Possible alternative: Convert to E_DEPRECATED, if we intend
Am 15.03.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Bob,
Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
propose
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw -
Hi Nikita,
On 15/03/2015 16:46, Nikita Popov wrote:
Hi internals!
To ensure we have no shortage of new RFC votes...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#vote
Voting is open for ten days :)
I know I'm late, but with I just have found the required time to test
the branch with
What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
understanding.
You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
language feature over to someone not doing real development on the
Rowan Collins rowan.coll...@gmail.com schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17
GMT+00:00:
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
Zeev,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev,
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
Hi
2015-03-15 8:33 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd dan...@basereality.com:
On 15 March 2015 at 06:59, Marcio Almada marcio.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I received some requests to update the RFC with more information about BC
breaks + possible minor adjustments regarding dynamic function calls.
Hi Daniel,
In the formal definition, you have:
$throw $e;
... which I assume is a typo?
Damien
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@php.net wrote:
Hi folks!
As the discussion period has reached its conclusion I'd like to announce a
two week voting period on the
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Damien Tournoud d...@damz.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
In the formal definition, you have:
$throw $e;
... which I assume is a typo?
Damien
Woops! Yes, this is a typo. Thanks for the heads-up; fixing now ...
On 15 March 2015 at 10:29, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
I want to vote yes, but naming is something that scares me a bit. Without
any indication that it's CSPRNG, people might start using it even when
unnecessary, and I'd be worried about potential negative effects, such as
I don't think agreeing to any of the three proposals out there is the
best option. I personally think there are viable options out there
that have not yet been heavily discussed.
For instance, everyone and their dog has complained about PHP's overly
promiscuous type juggling. This is one reason
On 15 March 2015 at 13:17, Pádraic Brady padraic.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Were folk to use random_int() by default, it would be actually be
considerably better than the situation today where many reach for
mt_rand() without really considering the use case. Using a strong
source of ints instead
Hi Daniel,
Would you mind clarifying the relationship between the Generator
Delegation RFC and the Generator Return Expressions RFC?
While I really appreciate the Generator Delegation RFC, the Generator
Return Expressions looks both unnecessary and kind of a hack to me. In
evented system based
2015-03-15 21:13 GMT+01:00 Damien Tournoud d...@damz.org:
Hi Daniel,
Would you mind clarifying the relationship between the Generator
Delegation RFC and the Generator Return Expressions RFC?
While I really appreciate the Generator Delegation RFC, the Generator
Return Expressions looks both
Hi Niklas,
To reiterate and explain my no vote:
The RFC is still lacking one thing
- any justification of why this deserves being a new piece of syntax,
rather than just being a function implemented either internally, or
even better in userland PHP.
The equation is not just will PHP be better
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:33 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Nikita Popov; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 19:47 schrieb Rowan Collins:
On 15/03/2015 10:41, Johannes Ott wrote:
Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or when not to use at all, can do crucial
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Matthew Leverton [mailto:lever...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. März 2015 20:46
An: Anthony Ferrara
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Betreff: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
On 3/15/15 10:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
[...]
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
[...]
eliw - no
[...]
Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do
not.
[...]
I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they
Bob,
Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
propose my own copy and move it to voting as soon as allowed. This, under
a
Hi all,
since my handle was included in the list compiled by Anthony, I figured
I'd reply to internals list as well.
On So, 2015-03-15 at 10:19 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Zeev,
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be
consistent with our existing type hints for
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Niklas Keller m...@kelunik.com wrote:
2015-03-15 19:13 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
I think allowing `null` for an `int` is an error. Converting a null to
zero on a type boundary is harmful in my opinion.
I agree, `null` shouldn't be allowed for
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
On 15/03/2015 04:23, Sammy Kaye Powers wrote:
A two week discussion period has been held for the reliable user-land
CSPRNG RFC to add `random_bytes()` and `random_int()`. The RFC has now
been
moved into voting.
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 6:31 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Levi Morrison; Michael Wallner; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
Literally nothing Anthony said was ridiculous or a
Zeev,
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we are either violating the RFC rules by pushing the vote tomorrow or
we're
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Kouřil [mailto:pajou...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:52 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
I like your idea, but there's a problem with this (apart from the thing
C'mon guys, vote didn't pass, it's time to do something about it and not
start conspiracy theories (or I will loose hope for humanity completely). I
happened to have a job-free next week, i've been saying for a long time now
that this has to be tackled differently and even layed down some thoughts
Zeev,
Thus, I deny your request and strongly urge you to *not* fork my RFC.
That
would be sabotaging of Anthony's and my RFC.
I won't tolerate that.
Anthony welcomed competing RFCs, and in fact proposed it. I don't see how
it would be sabotaging your RFC - when in fact it gives it a
2015-03-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
understanding.
You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
language
Hope everyone is having a good weekend, just making sure my outbound emails are
registering on the list :)
--
Mike Dugan
m...@dugan.io
http://dugan.io
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:22 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Voting for something you don't think is right isn't unity. It's simply
trying to
Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java
I think there are people who want to switch from Java to PHP, maybe they feel
easier with declare(strict...).
Also in the past, some companies switched from PHP to Java because they wanted
more strictness in their backend code.
I don't like
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Damien Tournoud d...@damz.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@php.net wrote:
This is actually a *vastly* inferior solution to language-level support
for generator returns. greenlet/gevent does it this way because these
libraries
Can we please stop with this? It's damaging to the language and the
community.
I am a strong believer of STH, no surprise there, but I do not think this
thread should have
been created. Is the php voting process uncontrolled and chaotic with no
real count of voting
members? Hell yes.
This does
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be
consistent with our existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays,
NULL is not accepted by default,
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 7:51 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev,
I'm sure we risk to have no STH at all in PHP 7.0 if I put it into vote
now.
On 15/03/2015 10:41, Johannes Ott wrote:
Okay get your point, but as already discussed several times, the rfc
should not be declined for the reason a ppl, who doesn't understand when
to use static context or when not to use at all, can do crucial things.
Because he although can do without the
On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
propose my
-Original Message-
From: Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:00 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Bob Weinand; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar Types
On 15 March 2015 at 16:55, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Bob,
Hi folks!
As the discussion period has reached its conclusion I'd like to announce a
two week voting period on the Generator Delegation RFC here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/generator-delegation
Voting ends Sunday, March 29.
I know everyone is busy and your time is valuable; thanks for spending a
Morning,
I just opened the vote for the in operator, you can find the RFC here:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/in_operator
Vote will be open for two weeks, counting from today.
Regards, Niklas
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Ferrara [mailto:ircmax...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 9:11 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pádraic Brady; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [INFO] Basic Scalar
Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
everybody went by the all votes must start by the 15th interpretation
that
has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
whopping six RFC votes started today? It isn't.
Please don't start
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Sorry, but ... even though your original RFC was very unclear about this,
everybody went by the all votes must start by the 15th interpretation
that
has been discussed in that thread. Do you think it's an accident that a
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Lowrey rdlow...@php.net wrote:
This is actually a *vastly* inferior solution to language-level support
for generator returns. greenlet/gevent does it this way because these
libraries were created before Python supported generator delegation (and
On 03/15/2015 03:49 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
Hi together,
Am 14.03.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Peter van Fessem:
If a dev turns a file that he or she wrote into strict mode, then that
only counts for that specific file. If you take over some code, then you
can remove the declare line. *none* of
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Markus Fischer mar...@fischer.name wrote:
On 15.03.15 16:46, Nikita Popov wrote:
To ensure we have no shortage of new RFC votes...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/reclassify_e_strict#vote
Voting is open for ten days :)
From the RFC:
Signature mismatch
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for the update. This time, though, although I completely respect
your decision not to put your RFC into a vote unless the Dual STH mode
fails, I'd like to either (with your permission) take over the RFC or
2015-03-15 19:13 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
