Re: [PHP-DEV] A new idea on PHP6.

Now that we have Traits, lets bring in Aspects too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming Also, PHP is not necessarily evil by allowing non-OO code, but maybe we could do better at the non-OO code side of things by adding prototyped inheritance in a javascript-ish spirit to at l

Re: [PHP-DEV] Add runkit to PHP Runtime

This is a great idea (the runkit, not the rootkit). On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Kris Craig wrote: > > > > What do you think? > > > > I think I need to get my lens prescription updated. I thought the subject > line read, "Add *rootkit *to PHP Runtime" and was already sharpening my > pitchfor

Re: [PHP-DEV] Aspect Oriented Programming in PHP

AOP is the future and a very awesome complement to OOP. It is a shame that very few are doing it and I think this would attract some good attention to PHP after traits (both are horizontal reuse mechanisms). On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Peter Nguyen wrote: > Well, you just have to know and c

Re: [PHP-DEV] Aspect Oriented Programming in PHP

AOP is not very well understood, it took me at least a week of going back and forth trying to grasp the core concepts. Before getting into debates (because the Observer & Event patterns could still allow for AOP-like programming), I advice everybody to watch the following two videos Using Aspect O

Re: [PHP-DEV] A remark about PHP's Vision and new things.

Hi, I suggest you start defining action items in the RFC. After reading what Stas and others say, this looks like too big a task to discuss in itself, so it should be definitely be broken down. You will probably find that as it is broken down, actual development support will surface by itself. R

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision

I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using annotations just... refrain from using them? Annotations are currently used by the industry through workarounds to the PHP language, so any argument on it's usefulness is completely moot. Adding native support for this (no one say

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using > > annotations just... refrain from using them? > > We've been there before. You seem to be thinking as a person who only > writes software for himself and has to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Lang wrote: > Am 11.01.2013 05:55, schrieb dukeofgaming: > > I have a question, maybe it is dumb: why not those opposed to using > > annotations just... refrain from using them? > > > > Although I am not the least against annot

Re: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?

Hi, I've never participated on the lists, but this was a topic I could just not look away from. My take on this is that it all boils down to the statistics of the developers and contributors, as Gwynne said, there is really no much merit on technical aspects of the tools... but rather how the comm

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations

Hi, first time on the lists, guess I'm from userlando too, +1 for readability, all I ever really look at are "( ... ){" at the end of the line so I personally don't think it affects readability. Also, this is the way its done in other languages and I have always found the function keyword unnecess

Re: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?

Hi, I was following this path to push the adoption of a DVCS for the Joomla project and I started to create the required documentation to make an informed argument and evaluation, I made some diagrams to make the case for their need for good team development and workflows, feel free to borrow any

Re: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?

ec 2, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Larry Garfield wrote: > The Drupal project's decision making process for moving to Git is > documented > extensively here: > > http://groups.drupal.org/node/48818 > > Just another data point. > > --Larry Garfield > > On Wednesday, December 0

Re: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?

, but not the shell integration, at all. I agree on visualizing repository tree on the GUI though. In the end its up to each individual. Regards, David On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > >> Yet another one here:http://hginit.com/00.html

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations

I toast to that. Get rid of T_VAR already. Regards, David On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > 2010/11/30 Kalle Sommer Nielsen : > > Hi > > > > 2010/11/30 Patrick ALLAERT : > >> With this patch, something looks inconsistent to me: > >> Both properties and methods have a visi

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Making T_FUNCTION optional in method declarations

How about deprecation then? On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:58 AM, André Rømcke wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Patrick ALLAERT >wrote: > > > 2010/11/30 Kalle Sommer Nielsen : > > > Hi > > > > > > 2010/11/30 Patrick ALLAERT : > > >> With this patch, something looks inconsistent to me: > > >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] git anyone?

them have actually worried about interoperability, meaning its possible to import files from other (D)VCSs. Regards, David On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > >> Its actually faster to use the command line when u have enough practice; >&

Re: [PHP-DEV] Implicit isset/isempty check on short-ternary operator

Hi, just to drop an opinion on something I felt natural when reading this: how about a word instead?: $value = 'Not set' unless $a['key']; I think it would be way more readable. Regards, David On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Adam Richardson wrote: > > > > > >> We need to be careful about cha

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

Hi, I'm not a frequent poster in the list but I thought I'd really should give my 1 cent here when I saw "popular" being an argument for using DVCSs, its not, and its neither fashion nor cargo cult, it is just a plain eye opener experience of how neither SVN or CVS are the base of all versioning (

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

opers carry a lot more > weight than potential developers, and it's important for them to be able to > work in a way that is comfortable for them. So a mirror or two would be > nice, and I'd push for that, but a change of official repo I will merely > suggest be considered lon

Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > > That's simply not true. But just because one group of users feel > strongly > > > about something doesn't mean it should go in. There has to be some > level > > of > > > curation or we end up with every feature under the sun resu

Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again

> > > so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the > development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on > irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have > different > priorities and expectations about the PHP language than the core devs.

Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > >> >>> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the >>> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list a

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote: > >> So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and >> start to discuss the actual impact of each feature. >> > > I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Lars Schultz wrote: > Am 11.05.2011 09:35, schrieb dukeofgaming: > > Que?. Are you aware that you cannot implement interface methods?. >> > Sorry. my bad. I mixed implementation with specification, but it would > work, no? > > Eh, well,

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > The roadmap is in the form of a feature list which you can find at > wiki.php.net/etc > There is never going to be complete agreement on any feature, but once > there is enough agreement from the main stakeholders

Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: > On 05/10/2011 01:04 PM, Stefan Marr wrote: > >> >> The whole thing required a lot of, what I would characterize as, >> hand-holding. Internals is not the most open community and needs not >> only good arguments, but persistence. And, well,

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: > >> The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?: >> https://wiki.php.net/todo >> > > That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > My main concern is the trickle-down effect a major low-level engine > addition causes. Your patch is just the tip of the iceberg which will cause > dozens of people weeks of work to account for the new code all across the > PHP ecosyste

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Larz, > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz > wrote: > > Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com: > >> > >> - Entities with knowledge about its persistence information >

Re: [PHP-DEV] annotations again

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com < guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi duke, > > I moved it to rejected in pro of a new proposal. > I briefly drafted it here: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations-in-docblock > > There's a lot of things to be officially defined, but b

[PHP-DEV] Regarding the echo short tag

Hi, I just wanted to ask what is the community's feeling on keeping the echo shortcut. I know short tags are kind of deprecated and I think it is the right call, however, I really really think the echo shortcut (which is still shorter than ), but maybe this later has bigger implications that I'm

Re: [PHP-DEV] Regarding the echo short tag

Should this go in "Accepted" then?. Regards, David On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, dukeofgaming wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just wanted to ask what is the community's feeling on keeping the echo > &g

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6?

Hi, I'm that somebody Tyrael is talking about. FTR, I'm all for deprecating short tags, but I do feel the echo shortcut is a separate issue. Perhaps if wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Philip Olson wrote: > > > PLEASE, let the dead horse be! > > >>> > >> Apparently, this horse is

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6?

So what would be there to discuss or agree on?, now that the topic is at hand. Regards, David On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > As far as I remember there weren't any serious objections to decoupling >> > tags in a file, and nobody else is going to come along an

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6?

@Michael Those are interesting ideas, I think you can register by yourself on the wiki, so you can add the RFC. OTOH, and again, I must say I really think the echo shortcut should be regarded as a separate issue, and now that there was some consensus we shouldn't deviate from the topic. In the en

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Is it true that short_open_tag is deprecated in PHP 6?

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Philip Olson wrote: > > > > @all > > > > Can we decide on decoupling tag > > matter? > > It feels like decoupling seen objections or reasons for not doing it, so think we can safely assume > that it's been decided. > Awesome

[PHP-DEV] Constructor object instance dereferentiation

Hi, I was wondering if object dereferentiation after constructor call is something that has been discussed already. This is, being able to do something like: new MyClass()->setSomething(); Instead of: $var = new MyClass(); $var->setSomething(); Regards, David Vega

Re: [PHP-DEV] Constructor object instance dereferentiation

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > hi. > > it was already discussion, Felipe created an RFC and a patch, the responses > was all positive, so I think if nobody changed their mind, we could move > this from Under Discussion to Accepted/Implemented > as I said before, it wou

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

Hi, I'm glad the topic has been picked up again, but I think there is an inconsistency in the proposal now that we are talking about being JSON-ish: JSON describes objects, not arrays. Then, what if "[]" were used for arrays and "{}" for objects?, so that: [1,2,3] //array(0=>1, 1=>2, 2=>3) ['one'

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > Hi, > > I'm glad the topic has been picked up again, but I think there is an > inconsistency in the proposal now that we are talking about being JSON-ish: > JSON describes objects, not arrays. Then, what if "[]&qu

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

Guys, as I said earlier, not even javascript (from javascript object notation, as in JSON) is 100% interoperable with JSON because single quotes are valid in javascript and not in json. I say ":" is way more cleaner than "=>" and it is a good opportunity to adopt it.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dan Birken wrote: > +1 > > To be honest, ['a': 'b'] or ['a' => 'b'] is so much better than array('a' > => > 'b') for general use I don't even care which one is picked, as long as one > of them is picked. > > -Dan > +1 to that too. Even when I've never liked that

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Rasmus wrote: > On 05/31/2011 05:42 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > > > I'm afraid that if ":" is associated with the JSON interop argument and > the > > later is discarded then ":" will be discarded too, much like what

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

Also, take a peak at this: http://www.phpsadness.com/sad/45 And compare it with this: http://perldoc.perl.org/perldsc.html#Declaration-of-a-HASH-OF-COMPLEX-RECORDS Regards, David Vega On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > > I agree, it would be a break a lot of code.

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Michael Shadle wrote: > I don't really want to stand on my soapbox any longer, as it's obvious > where the crowd leans on this one, but I need to clarify a couple > points a bit and feel obligated to reply to another. > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Stas Mal

[PHP-DEV] Wiki editing privileges

Hi, I remember having wiki editing privileges not so long ago, I was going to enter and add the entry for discussions at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays but I cannot edit anymore. Would it be too much to ask to have them enabled?. Best regards, David Vega

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

:28 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > >> >> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/35074/im-a-subversion-geek-why-i-should-consider-or-not-consider-mercurial-or-git-or/35080#35080 >> >> So, I don't want to make debate here of wether centra

Re: [PHP-DEV] Wiki editing privileges

Thanks, I also don't think that was the case. Regards, David On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Philip Olson wrote: > > On May 31, 2011, at 11:05 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I remember having wiki editing privileges not so long ago, I was going to

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

brepos and they are quite nice. I'm still not that familiar with git submodules. BTW, you don't need to use python to customize/extend mercurial's behavior, you can use hooks: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Hook Best regards, David On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Lester Cain

Re: [PHP-DEV] Wiki editing privileges

Hmm, I can edit pages within the RFC namespace but I cannot edit https://wiki.php.net/rfc. Regards, David On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, dukeofgaming wrote: > Thanks, I also don't think that was the case. > > Regards, > > David > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > Drak wrote: > >>At the current time I think that PHP would need to restructure how >>it is packaged up to provide a single repo in both HG or GIT. >>Keeping SVN ( I'd still prefer CVS here it works BETTER as a master >>for DVCS

Re: [PHP-DEV] DVCS

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > >>hggit + Mercurial Eclipse + Eclipse means I could not care less what >>the target is EXCEPT that one can't write a project that is JUST the >>set of sub-modules that you w

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

After that argument, I think I'm against ":" now too. +1 to "=>" Could "{ }" be implemented for objects too then?. Regards, David On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Ford, Mike wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: ekne...@gmail.com [mailto:ekne...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Etienne Kn

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > Reminder: Pls add your votes here: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote Who is allowed to vote?, are userland votes still going to count?, if so, how does one qualify as userland voter?. Best regards, David Vega

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Philip Olson wrote: > >>> Reminder: Pls add your votes here: > >>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays/vote > >> > >> > >> Who is allowed to vote?, are userland votes still going to count?, if > so, > >> how does one qualify as userland voter?. > > > > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

I still don't get it, the idea of making it look like json wont make it json, it will be PHP, and if you dare to write you "jsony" object/array with single quoted strings wont break the code even when its not JSON. I'll say it again: not even Javascript supports 100% valid JSON. I'll say it even m

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Short syntax for Arrays (redux)

State the case for JSON in a separate RFC and progress will be made, but I think there is a fundamental mistake here: serialization formats are the *means* for interoperability, not the ends. The only way I see JSONy syntax would help is if PHP code —with JSONy syntax— would be parsed by a JSON pa

Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward)

How about a separate email topic dedicated to voting?, that would reduce the signal to noise ratio for votes (and increase it for opinions). Regards, David On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Martin Scotta wrote: > Martin Scotta > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > hi D

[PHP-DEV] JSON array/object syntax

Hi, After reading all the debate in the other thread it is still not clear to me what the real advantages are of adopting JSON syntax for native PHP types. Doing json_encode to an object and expect the code and output to be the same seems useless to me, and reading David Zülke's example it seems m

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bundling "modern" extensions

How about the Yaml extension?, it looks well maintained enough: http://pecl.php.net/package/yaml Regards, David On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 01:00, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > In parallel I'd also see if there are any key extensions which we

Re: [PHP-DEV] JSON array/object syntax

where it would be interchangeable with JS > code or be evaluated as JSON by other JSON parsers) - namely the problem > that you could produce *PHP code*, that, with some mingling and stripping, > *PHP's own json_decode() could not process*. > > > > Perhaps I should have made t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Object and Array Literals

I like the idea of supporting both "=>" and ":". Would this work?: $foo = { 'bar' : function(){ echo 'baz'; } }; $foo->bar(); And I'm guessing this shouldn't work: $array = array('foo' : 'bar'); Regards, David On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Chris Stockton wrote: > He

Re: [PHP-DEV] Object and Array Literals

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Sanford Whiteman < sa...@cypressintegrated.com> wrote: > > -- I do not feel that the acronym JSON has any clarifying nor edifying > place in the RFC describing this syntax. > > Rather, I would suggest one of the following: > > · JavaScript-like [object|array] literal

Re: [PHP-DEV] JSON array/object syntax

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > dukeofgaming wrote: > >> Ok, I found that Ruby added support for a new JSONy syntax a little while >> ago, this is interesting: >> >> http://webonrails.com/2009/02/06/ruby-191-hash/ >> >> Bu

Re: [PHP-DEV] Object and Array Literals

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Sean Coates wrote: > > I was careful in the RFC to indicate that this is *not* JSON, but if others > feel as strongly as you do about the use of this term, I think it can be > removed without hurting the idea (as you indicated). > Still, it is mentioned so many tim

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting Process (was: [PHP-DEV] Re: Voting does not belong on the wiki! (Was: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 moving forward))

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > > > I'd to go with a 60% for language syntax, 50+1 for new exts or sapis. > Other question is who can vote. For one, I like to have external > people being able to vote, like frameworks/apps lead developers as > well as @php.net in general (docs

Re: [PHP-DEV] Callable type

+1 for "callable", it is really more consistent. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney < weierophin...@php.net> wrote: > On 2011-06-07, David Zülke wrote: > > On 07.06.2011, at 22:31, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > > > > Hi! > > > > callback is callable, the opposite could not be tru

Re: [PHP-DEV] Callable type

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney < weierophin...@php.net> wrote: > On 2011-06-07, dukeofgaming wrote: > > --0016e68ee3e4bc4b0e04a525bac6 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > &g

Re: [PHP-DEV] [IDEA/PRE-RFC] PHP Core Mentorship Program

Hi David, That would be awesome. I do want to contribute but haven't got time to get to know all PHP's quirks. I have some knowledge of compiler theory and low level C/C++ (memory management, system programming). Some stuff I had in mind to try implementing: - The "object(...)" language construc

Re: [PHP-DEV] Give the Language a Rest motion (fwd)

Hi, I think that —in any context— the "if it aint broke don't fix it" is a very depressing attitude to have, and a very wrong one in any open source community. If the signal to noise ratio is the problem, I think its better to focus on that problem, not shutting down the signal. If PHP is a resou

Re: [PHP-DEV] Give the Language a Rest motion (fwd)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Pascal COURTOIS wrote: > Le 16/06/2011 04:36, dukeofgaming a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I think that —in any context— the "if it aint broke don't fix it" is a > very > > depressing attitude to have, and a very wrong one

Re: [PHP-DEV] Give the Language a Rest motion (fwd)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Pascal COURTOIS wrote: > Le 16/06/2011 08:01, dukeofgaming a écrit : > > > Sorry if the question is dumb, but, how many core developers does PHP > have?, > > how many in total (including non-core contributors)?. > > That's not th

Re: [PHP-DEV] Can't vote yet, as RFC has "options" (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] release process RFC)

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: > > I am not generally against this RFC, but this point needs to be > discussed first IMO. As having 5 active branches at the same time for > the "multiple major releases" option is *not* workable. > If its because of the constant merges, it

Re: [PHP-DEV] An implementation of a short syntax for closures

Hi, I've always thought that just supressing the "function" keyword could work as a shorthand, i.e. having ([param1 [, param2 [, ...]]]){...}. Somewhat similar to Ruby's lambda shorthand: http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#40 Regards, David On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf

Re: [PHP-DEV] An implementation of a short syntax for closures

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:12, Antony Dovgal wrote: > >>> Btw, am I the only one to whom the proposed syntax seems kinda > >>> hieroglyphic? > >> No. I don't see at all why we need this, just like I don't see why we > >> needed an alternativ

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Choosing a distributed version control system for PHP (or not). Call for Participation.

Hi, very glad this topic has resurfaced and I honesly think using a DVCS will be a game-changer for PHP. Just wanted to drop a couple of answers I've dedicated some time in at SE, several diagrams, to-point explanations and references that might be of uso to clear out introductory topics. http://p

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Choosing a distributed version control system for PHP

The only think that worries me is that most of the time people choose the service and not the tool. On one hand you have Mercurial, a more than capable DVCS with the lowest barrier of entry IMHO (you will love it while you learn it), and the very good service that is Bitbucket, now kind of catchin

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RESULT] Choosing a distributed version control system for PHP

Awesome news, this particular decision tends not to be an easy one in open source software communities (well, perhaps now it is easier with all the traction git & github have) so I think this is evidence of how good the RFC process is. Is there a github repository already?. Best regards and congr

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RESULT] Choosing a distributed version control system for PHP

, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 09/07/2011 11:15 PM, dukeofgaming wrote: > > Awesome news, this particular decision tends not to be an easy one in > open > > source software communities (well, perhaps now it is easier with all the > > traction git & github ha