or of changing the entire group. Combined with no
> impact analysis being available for each proposal - it's very likely that
> there's 'herd mentality' happening there. Putting each in a separate vote
> would have likely not thoroughly solved this, but it would have probably
> been a good first step, allowing more granular choice. I think that this
> particular change (requiring separate votes for each change) can be done
> relatively easily within our existing framework - similar to the Abolish
> RFCs, if there's widespread agreement. In the context of Ben's email from
> a few weeks ago, I'll defer to someone else to propose it if they think it
> makes sense.
>
> Zeev
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:12 AM Benjamin Eberlei
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:47 PM Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Olumide Samson
>> > wrote:
>
sn't because PHP
isn't strict enough. It's because it doesn't do a lot of the things that
languages like Python can do. If this is the case, we don't reverse the
trend by making our language more syntactically or behaviorally like the
other languages out there. We reverse it by supporting the features that
are currently lacking, or, adding features that other languages don't have.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ss of people or massive waste of brain effort.
>
> And I understand that this topic is about the governance of the project
> etc... just wanted to bring the attention of the group to the fact that
> even on 2/3 in certain cases compromises may be needed and this to be taken
> into account when deciding on the governance/voting process.
>
> Thank you all
>
> Vesko Kenashkov
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
.
> It's that if language wouldn't allow you to write that code it will
> benefit the language image and the rest of the PHP comunity.
>
> Also, I would also like to remind of this:
> https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/docs/mailinglist-rules.md
> I think some par
cause other features that I want to utilize will also be added in PHP
8.
Or were you implying you want hitch-free, no-modification upgrade to PHP 8
> from PHP 7.0?
>
I never said that. Here we go again with the "I guess you are against all
BC breaks" nonsense. If BC breaks are required to add new functionality,
or, have a very minimal negative impact, then I don't have a problem with
them. This is not one of those cases. It changes a fundamental aspect of
the language, an aspect that many people actually like, and it doesn't add
any new features to the language, nor is it needed to add any new features
to the language.
> If yes, follow the best practices and not suppress error notices.
>
> Just My Opinion
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ithout sacrificing the flexibility provided by PHP.
Don't force ME to write code a specific way because you aren't disciplined
enough to not write bad code without the compiler forcing you to do things
a certain way.
Of all of the justifications for this RFC I've heard, "I can't stop writing
bad code as long as I'm allowed to" has to be the worst.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
roken record. But call me naive - I'm
> still hoping that given it obviously can be done from a technical
> perspective (in a wide variety of ways too) - we can find the good will to
> do it from a human perspective.
>
>
Exactly. I think it's telling that the majority of the rebuttals to
arguments against the RFC are to claim that we're against moving the
language forward, against BC breaks, etc. That couldn't be further from the
truth. We do want to move the language forward. We want do that by adding
to the language, and not changing it into an entirely different language.
> Zeev
>
>
> >
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
who won't
> upgrade due to the BC breaks also won't need the new features anyway
> very realistically.
>
>
Someone that has a lot of uninitialized variables could definitely take
advantage of features like enums and union types (just to name a few). If
there were actually new, useful features that were dependent on such a
change, then I'd be much more open to the idea, if not outright in favor of
it. However, there aren't any new and useful features that are dependent on
the errors being thrown for uninitialized variables.
> Microsoft, Zend, and Red Hat have been showing that this is actually
> possible. How smart this is for the PHP progress is another story, but
> for the business it might be good to think about this also I guess:
> https://github.com/microsoft/php-src/releases
>
> So, to make some sort of a milestone with some of the versions -
> either 8 or 9 or something.
>
>
> --
> Peter Kokot
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ver, I think most people agree
> that the quality of Wordpress code and Plugins is highly debatable. I don't
> like the idea of not being able to progress because Wordpress users won't
> upgrade PHP.
>
> It's not a matter of won't upgrade, but that they can't upgrade. If
Wordpress decides to take their time supporting PHP 8, wordpress users
won't have any option but to wait on upgrading.
> Regards,
> Lynn van der Berg
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:58 PM Olumide Samson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:33 PM Matthew Brown
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What if Java suddenly said that all properties are suddenly priva
bably speak for yourself...
>
> If they want more customers(translating to revenue), they can upgrade and
> if they don't it's all up to them...
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:59 PM Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Lynn wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:58 PM Stephen Reay
wrote:
>
> > On 13 Sep 2019, at 00:41, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:33 PM Matthew Brown
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What if Java suddenly said that all properties are suddenly private, and
ture. It was
>> never considered an error, and often not even considered bad practice
>
>
> You seem to be arguing against *ever* changing something that a majority
> once thought was good, and fundamental to a given system. Lots of things
> fall into that category - restricting voting to men, segregation, etc.
>
>>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:39 PM Olumide Samson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:22 PM Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:05 PM Matthew Brown
>> wrote:
>>
>> > that don't fundamentally change the language
>> >
&g
ctionality like enums, union types, variable typing, etc.
I also think it's a bit of a stretch to compare something like variable
initialization with things that denied people their basic human rights.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
rties private and use such methods is a practice that was
drilled into me from day one. Would that justify making such a change,
though?
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
n tweak them, we can augment them - we do not get to deprecate
> or radically change them.
> >
> > We can (and I believe should) augment them with alternative, stricter
> opt-in behaviors. But those who dream of simply changing PHP into a
> stricter language step by step should understand that this is simply not
> going to be happen. Not now, not ever.
> >
> > Zeev
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ut making the change, I might be more
sympathetic to making it. But there is. Whether it's an error handler like
you mentioned above, stricter code reviews, public shaming for anyone that
doesn't initialize their variables, or any of the myriad of other options.
> Best,
> Jordi
>
> --
>
> Jordi Boggiano
> @seldaek - https://seld.be
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
r code is not only for compiler/parser, but also for humans. Expressing
> your intentions clearly is important - the less ambiguity the better.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Korulczyk
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:20 AM Reindl Harald (privat)
wrote:
> see screenshot, you are the only guy on planet earth whose fukcing first
> line is part of the quote above
>
If you're going to reply to me off list, please at least be polite.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:13 AM Olumide Samson
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:59 PM Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:33 AM Olumide Samson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to those who can vote, all in all I hope for a bet
e to check for that.
I can do this already:
if(!isset($i)){
return false;
}
$i++;
So, why should I start having to do
if(!isset($i)){
$i = 0;
}
$i++;
when
$i++;
works just fine.
> Regards,
> --
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:06 AM Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
>
>
> чт, 12 сент. 2019 г. в 16:02, Chase Peeler :
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:55 AM Claude Pache
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > Le 12 sept. 2019 à 15:33, Marco Pivetta a écri
it can be done in the current system.
I'm making my prediction now - if this RFC passes, the adoption rate for
PHP 8 is going to be HORRIBLE.
> But many of us would also like the language engine to tighten up some of
> its extremely relaxed parts that do not fit in modern development
> e
w because some people think
that since they like doing it like the way above, everyone should have to.
> —Claude
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
or specific
> > cases that were controversial during the discussion, the last one is for
> > the remainder of the proposal.
> >
> > Voting closes 2019-09-26.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nikita
> >
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
te down everything precisely, and having to
> write explicitly and once for all that, yes, this precise variable must
> have that default value, is a minimal part of the time passed to write,
> re-read and review the code.
>
> What??? You mean it's possible to write strict code
m some place).
> And sometimes you might want different versions / generations in the
> same package.
>
My first reply got rejected by the listserv for being too big. I cleaned up
some the quoted text, but I apologize if anyone sees this twice.
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
nstead of letting it keep its unique
qualities that make it great and different, I asked a c# developer I know
about how Microsoft deals with breaking changes. Here was his response:
"I’ve never heard of a breaking change when new versions of C# are
released. There are occasionally breaking changes when upgrading to a new
version of .NET, but they always (as far as I’m aware) have a way to
prevent the change from breaking anything by adding a parameter the app’s
configuration."
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
tinues to exist in the language if undeclared
variables only generate a notice - given the fact that how PHP handles
undeclared variables is will documented and, in my opinion, actually a
feature of the language?
> I was hoping that the glaring obviousness of how other languages tackled
> similar issues (Perl, JS) would go a longer way. It should.
>
> Zeev
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
bout being a real possibility.
If we operated that way 10 years ago, then there are plenty that still
operate that way today.
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 12:26, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Mark Randall wrote:
> >
> > > On 28/08/2019 1
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 28/08/2019 16:37, Chase Peeler wrote:
> > I'm also not the one that built it on the eggshells - I'm just the one
> that
> > is now in charge of developing the system that someone else left sitting
> >
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:37 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Den ons. 28. aug. 2019 kl. 17.54 skrev Chase Peeler >:
> > You going to come and fix the issues? It's an internal application and
> > most of those messages are coming from legacy areas of the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:12 AM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 28/08/2019 15:54, Chase Peeler wrote:
> > Bottom line is that we live with the not-so-good stuff so that we can
> focus
> > on adding new great stuff. The not-so-good stuff isn't holding us back,
> and
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:39 AM Marco Pivetta wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:27 PM Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:20 AM Gert wrote:
>> Notices include a lot more than just undeclared variables. Turning them on
>> in our environment woul
server
generates about 5-10 megs of logs in a day. Our CLI servers (which runs
beanstalkd jobs) generates about 80-100 megs of logs in a day. That's
without notices turned on.
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 16:16, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > Well, one reason I was so vocal about short
dying attempt to keep pushing those type of changes, which are destined to
be rejected, or, evidence that we are still in danger of having such a
precedent set.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:11 AM Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:55 AM Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:55 AM Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.08.19 um 15:48 schrieb Chase Peeler:
> > If it is still done, then I think a deprecation path is a must. As
> > mentioned earlier, this doesn't necessarily mean E_DEPRECATION messages -
> > warning
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:30 AM Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:35 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:10 PM Nikita Popov
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:41 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> >
>>
> breaks compatibility, but because it breaks how many people are used to
> write their PHP code. Perl provided stricter-liking folks with a solution
> in the form of 'use strict;' decades ago; JS did something similar much
> more recently. Neither of these created any sort of bifurcation - it's a
> simple, sensible solution that has virtually no downsides.
>
> While I like Zeev's idea of making it opt-in, I think that a deprecation
path is needed at the very least. I think this has the potential to be an
even bigger issue to deal with than short tags. At least short tags have
been discouraged for a long time. The first short tags RFC would have
probably lead to a delay in upgrading to 8.0. This RFC would pretty much
guarantee never being able to upgrade to 8.0 until we've totally retired
our legacy code base... which will probably be just in time for PHP 28.0 -
assuming the PHP project isn't dead at that point due to this RFC.
> Zeev
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
best practices. If there is any documentation that
doesn't make this clear, submit a bug report.
If you really feel that we should start treating short tags as totally
legitimate, then someone else with better knowledge of how to proceed with
that will need to provide advice.
> --
> Peter Kokot
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
wise in my opinion. It puts the project in a
bad place if it's forced to stick to it's decision, or, it makes the whole
reason for having made a decision pointless if we keep finding certain
items that are exceptions.
> Mark Randall
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
t have based their opinion on knowing that
others will be negatively impacted by this, even if they personally won't.
Honestly, if it was just my code that was the concern, I wouldn't be as
vocal. I can suck it up and fix things. I can cut through the red tape and
get it done at some point so we can upgrade. I'm vocal on this because I
know there are other developers out there dealing with a legacy code base
like mine, if not worse, that might not be able to just bite the bullet and
get it done.
> Regards,
> Robert Korulczyk
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
acy PHP, but, there
will always be discussions about some of the more controversial ways that
types are juggled.
There might be a time in the future where I do feel like a proposal like
this is justified or even needed. I just don't feel we are at that point
right now, nor do I think we are headed towards it.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
bugs with serious consequences, far beyond code leak.
>
> What about the display_errors ini directive? That seems like a security
risk as well, since error messages can contain sensitive information. I
know keeping/removing it isn't mutually exclusive with keeping/removing
short tags. I'm just curious why it's never mentioned by anyone that
suddenly is so concerned about the security implications of short tags.
>
>
> Regards,
> Robert Korulczyk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
rn multiple languages
> to get a desktop, mobile and web application designed).
>
> Please,clean up.
>
> >
>
The "shake-ups" that will draw people to PHP are the new features, the
majority of which don't require BC breaks and were listed earlier in this
thread.
is word, and neither
> did I claim they were absolutes. Your last sentence is what my email said
> to my reading.
>
> The problem I see is that if we don't commit to anything, then we stand for
> everything and nothing.
>
>
> Any thoughts on governance and the lack of consensus over who should/should
> not have a say in what happens?
>
> Peter
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
out.
>
> On the typing front, the course PHP has been going down in practice is to
> have an increasingly robust type system, all of which is opt-in. Frankly I
> think that's *super cool*, and a great way of balancing the prototyping
> benefits of dynamic languages (which
> > I was trying to think of something which could easily break if passed
> > between two versions, and something which immediately came to mind was
> > union types and reflection, a method which returned one string would
> > need to return an array, or just the first, and so on.
rity hole in the exact same level that httpd.conf is a security
> hole. Yes, misconfiguring your Web server can have severe consequences.
> Thankfully, it's not nearly that big of a Thing for us to be concerned
> about.
>
> We need to get rid of the display_errors ini directive as well. It
definitely shouldn't default to "1" or be set to "1" in the sample files
distributed with PHP. I would think this is a much greater security risk
than short tags. While we're at it, we need to get rid of the ability to
even set custom error handlers. If a programmer doesn't use that correctly,
they could still end up exposing error messages that contain sensitive
data.
> Zeev
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
s long as
they exist, so we must force them to stop using them, no matter how painful
that might be. That's actually an OK thing to do if the reasons for doing
so justify it. I have yet to see the justification. All I've seen is people
attempt to mitigate the cost of the break, or, say the cost doesn't really
matter.
> --
> Arvīds Godjuks
>
> +371 26 851 664
> arvids.godj...@gmail.com
> Skype: psihius
> Telegram: @psihius https://t.me/psihius
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 16:17, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:35 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM Brent wrote:
> > >
> > &
worth that risk. Is this one of them?
Many people have talked about the potential impacts of keeping short tags.
I have yet to see anyone give an actual example where they have been
negatively impacted by their existence. I've given you my personal story of
how removing them will negatively impact my company. I welcome anyone that
can provide an actual incident where the existence of short tags hurt them,
or, the continued existence is likely to have a large negative impact on
them in the future.
> Zeev
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
l of that code in order to upgrade
would be so high that it's likely I would never get approval from my
superiors to spend that much time on it.
> I don't have a vote, but if I were I would vote "yes". Instead, I encourage
> "no"-voters to reconsider, and others to vote "yes" too :)
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote
ll intents and purposes, the first RFC never existed. If the current RFC
passes, then it will be implemented as proposed. If it fails, then
treatment of short tags will remain as it currently is.
I hope you will reconsider your decision to not vote on this new RFC. I
understand your concerns. As someone that didn't like the outcome of the
first vote either, I also didn't feel that a revote just because a lot of
people decided to speak up after the fact was the correct course of action.
I don't think that is what is happening here, though.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean
>
_tags
>
> Best regards
>
> George P. Banyard
>
> [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate_php_short_tags_v2
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
said in his email. That being said, I think this RFC
handles the deprecation process much better. My objections to the previous
RFC were two-fold: 1.) benefits didn't outweigh harms and 2.)
deprecation/removal path was dangerous and harmful.
I still think #1 applies to this RFC. I do not think #2 does. While I agree
with some others that the it might be better to postpone the decision about
the ultimate removal to a later date, I don't think slating it for 9.0 is
that big of a deal. I think it also gives people much more time to adapt
than previous road maps.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ople specify the flag when they want? If
there a reason adding such an option as a new parameter wouldn't work for
other methods, like getcwd?
> Greetings,
> Gert de Pagter (BackEndTea)
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ctually my
biggest concern. That's where the discussion usually ended up due to the
fact that most responses just said "it's easy to make the updates." The
potential for code leaks actually concerned me more. I think the above
proposal addresses that well.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:07 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 19:44, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Marco Pivetta
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 19:25 Christian Schneider, >
> &g
reason why people write now (and not in the discussion
> phase) because for some time in the voting there wasn't the 2/3 majority
> for the 7.4 (so no sense to clutter the list) and now in the end only 1-2
> votes make the difference.
> >
> > rr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Marco Pivetta wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 19:25 Christian Schneider,
> wrote:
>
> > Am 24.04.2019 um 19:13 schrieb Marco Pivetta :
> > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 19:10 Christian Schneider, >
> > wrote:
> > > Am 24.04.2019 um 19:01 schrieb Peter Kokot :
> > > > just
ncement. It involves risk with no reward.
> - Chris
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 24/04/2019 15:35, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >> Total files scanned: 20,767
> > Total lines scanned: 4,013,170
> > Total short open tag references: 6,787
> > Total files w/ short open tag references: 1,665
&
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > George P. Banyard
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
k. No one ever responded to even one of those points.
> Peter
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 16:51, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephen Reay
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > On 24 Apr 2019, at 22:16, Chase Peeler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephen Reay
wrote:
>
> > On 24 Apr 2019, at 22:16, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:02 AM Stephen Reay <mailto:php-li...@koalephant.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > On 24 Apr 20
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:02 AM Stephen Reay
wrote:
>
> > On 24 Apr 2019, at 21:35, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> > If I get started now, maybe I can have everything fixed by the time 8.1
> is
> > released.
>
>
> Two characters less than this sentence of
ttps://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
, April 11, 2019, 11:38:31 PM
> > Subject: PHP Driver / Maintainer
> >
> > ===8<==Original message text=== Hello Helen,
> >
> > hope everything is running smoothly in the Southern hemisphere ;-)
> >
> > I would like to give you an update on . The voting to exclude
> the
> > driver from the main php distribution has started (only people on the
> > php.internals mailing list can vote, http://news.php.net/php.internals)
> and
> > as expected it is not looking good:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecate-and-remove-ext-interbase
> >
> > Today Martin has finally succeeded to get into the internal php-mailing
> > list, after he had contacted some guys of the core php team directly.
> Let's
> > see ...
> >
> > best, Volker
>
>
> --
> regards,
>
> Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> ka...@php.net
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
without looking at past
> vote frequency, but say 4 months or 10 votes, whichever is longer.
>
> Peter
>
For this to have meaningful results, I think you would also need the
ability for people to abstain, along with a comment as to why they aren't
voting.
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
the documentation to remove the second list - anything not in
the first list is not affected.
3.) Update the language so that ++ and -- cast booleans to ints.
I don't think #3 is actually a good solution.
> - Chris
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
ar reason why the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I'm not seeing that in this case.
> [1] https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/pl-php/all/all
>
> rr
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:41 AM Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Niklas,
>
> Allowing the extension of voting leaves us open to someone extending the
> voting period simply because they don't feel like they have the result they
> wanted.
>
> The problem we're trying to solve is votes that are too sho
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:26 PM Travis van der Font
wrote:
> Arrow functions are ternary operators to functions.
> While they are nice and shorten, they can be hard to read at times;
> considerably to people who aren't used to them which is surprisedly a
> majority of PHP programmers.
>
> Having
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:12 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Den tir. 12. mar. 2019 kl. 15.49 skrev Chase Peeler >:
> > Everything looks weird and "non-phpish" when it's new. OO constructs
> weren't PHP-ish at first, because PHP didn't ori
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:55 AM Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Den søn. 10. mar. 2019 kl. 23.45 skrev Larry Garfield <
> la...@garfieldtech.com>:
> >
> > Hello, peoples. I know it's been discussed once or twice before on the
> list, many years ago, but not recently. I therefore feel OK pu
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:25 AM Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Mo, 2019-03-04 at 07:30 -0800, Steven Penny wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 02:23:46, Peter Kokot wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, interesting is that in bash and some langs (where the main
> > > environment is CLI), there is by default newline
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:35 AM Levi Morrison wrote:
> >> I recognize that there is one downside, which is that lazy evaluation
> >> is lost, but generally don't see it to be an issue in these specific
> >> cases.
> >>
> > Lazy evaluation doesn't have to be lost if the all_of and any_of
> functi
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:59 AM Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:39 AM Woortmann, Enno
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > as I reviewed a bunch of code for handling data from different sources
> > (eg. json) in the last days I stumbled over code like this multiple
> times:
>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:46 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:25, Craig Duncan wrote:
>
> > The *iterable* type accepts a plain array, but not an object that is used
> > to represent a plain array, that's surprising to me.
> >
>
>
> I think this notion of stdClass as "an object
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:04 PM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:47 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> wrote:
>
> > Without my usual Windows bias, I do believe it is a considerable fact
> > like Nikita pointed out as Windows is a first class citizen in terms
> > of operating systems we su
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:58 PM Kalle Sommer Nielsen
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Zeev
> >
> > Den tor. 31. jan. 2019 kl. 15.44 skrev Zeev Suraski :
> > >
> > > Without further ado, an RFC that’s attempting to comprehensively solve
> > many of the issu
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:15 AM Anatol Belski wrote:
> Hi Sara,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sara Golemon
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:20 PM
> > To: Dmitry Stogov
> > Cc: PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FFI - Foreign Function Interface
> >
> > I'm not su
>
>
> > If $left operand and $right operand both have the magic methods, it will
> call $left->__magic($right), otherwise, if only the right one has the
> handler? What if the right one has compareTo and the left has only equal?
> you probably should add a table that explains which method is called
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:46 AM niel wrote:
> On 24/06/18 17:16, Nikita Popov wrote:
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > Another small deprecation for your consideration...
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/continue_on_switch_deprecation
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nikita
> >
>
> Could you clarify the PHP 8 chang
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 1:16 PM Mark Baker wrote:
> On 24/06/2018 18:23, Rowan Collins wrote:
> > I've argued before that there should be a roadmap and a cycle for major
> releases, and if not, then some agreement on what triggers one, but we've
> so far not managed to agree either.
>
> I do beli
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:45 PM Rowan Collins
wrote:
> On 14 June 2018 at 17:16, Alice Wonder wrote:
>
> >
> > Should declare(strict_types = 1) do that?
> >
> > I haven't tried, but I would think it should.
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't, and shouldn't. "strict_types" actually means
> "non_coercive_sca
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:18 PM Michael Morris wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Paul Jones wrote:
> > > > On Jan 2, 2018, at 12:29, Dustin Wheeler wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2
16 PM Peter Lind wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2018 18:13, "Chase Peeler" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Andrey Andreev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Chase Peeler
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Paul. It would be different if email clients that allowed
> > filtering were expensive or hard to find. They aren’t, though.
ive or hard to find. They aren’t, though. Pretty much
every email client not only allows filtering, but rather advanced filtering
as well.
Instead of suspending users, no matter how egregious their offenses may be,
let individual users filter them out as they see fit.
> <http://www.php.net/unsub.php>
--
Chase Peeler
chasepee...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:46 PM Kevin Gessner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Chris Riley wrote:
>
> > This isn't such a great idea as it will cause some of traits
> functionality
> > to be broken: I can currently use a trait and alias its methods and
> change
> > their visibility. If
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:42 PM Fleshgrinder wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 2/19/2016 8:34 PM, Chase Peeler wrote:
> > My comments above, however, were more in relation to the HHVM
> > notion of "requires implement interfac
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:13 PM Kevin Gessner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Chase Peeler
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov
>> wrote:
>>
> HHVM already supports "trait Foo implements Iface" with the semantics that
>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kevin Gessner wrote:
>
> > Hello internals team! I'd like to propose an RFC to allow traits to
> > implement interfaces.
> >
> > I've noticed s pattern in Etsy's code and elsewhere, where a trait
> provides
>
101 - 200 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
