On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 10/8/11 3:07 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> I've just noticed that the php namespace and the primitive types
>> (string, bool, int) are still not reserved.
>
> Reserving primitive types was decided not to be practically implementabl
thanks for the heads up, I didn't remembered that thread :(
btw. didn't we had some parser improvement patch laying around for a while now?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2011/10/8 Ferenc Kovacs :
>> Hi
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote
>> I've just noticed that
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 8:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Time zone database shut down by legal threat
>
> Pierre Joye wrote:
> > See the blog post itself for more information. They create a mailing
> > list to create an alternative dat
Hi!
On 10/8/11 3:07 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I've just noticed that the php namespace and the primitive types
(string, bool, int) are still not reserved.
Reserving primitive types was decided not to be practically
implementable. As for reserving namespace PHP, this was supposed to be
documen
Hi!
On 10/7/11 8:13 PM, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
The UPGRADING file is also completely worthless.
I have no idea what is going on, as a dev, nor as a documentor.
Be it traits, closures, or whatever random new parameter or function was added.
When 5.3 came around, I literally had to diff the sourc
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:02:57 +0100, Frédéric Hardy
wrote:
Hello !
I don't think so, but if I had to summarize the innovations in 5.4,
this would be it:
- Closures can now have an associated scope
- Closures can now have a bound object
- Closures can now be either static or non-static
-
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> The votes made on that topic where mostly done by people who obviously
> haven't take care of the technical limitations nor having followed the
> BC problems it generates.
> That topic shouldn't have been voted at all.
It was voted on the
Hi,
sorry I didn't follow this thread yet. But reading upon the RFC and your
explanations it looks like tis would really help solve problems with
logging that can appear in various situations.
Sounds like a valid request to me ...
Regards,
Stefan
On 10/08/2011 04:13 PM, Jérôme Loyet wrote:
>
Hi there,
as nobody seem to care about thisRFC , I'll sadly trash it to /dev/null ...
++ jerome
Le 18 juillet 2011 01:54, Jérôme Loyet a écrit :
> no one ?
>
> Le 5 juillet 2011 15:52, Jérôme Loyet a écrit :
> > Hi there,
> >
> > a while ago I submitted a patch to allow multiple simultaneous
2011/10/8 Ferenc Kovacs :
> Hi
>
> https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote
> I've just noticed that the php namespace and the primitive types
> (string, bool, int) are still not reserved.
> the primitive types didn't had the 66% of the votes, but the php
> namespace did, so at least that should have b
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Sorry I don't understand why you say this is not the same discussion.
>
> Personally I only use an Apache SAPI
They can't be distributed like pecl's extension. That's why. off topic, take #2.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.n
Hello !
> I don't think so, but if I had to summarize the innovations in 5.4, this
> would be it:
>
> - Closures can now have an associated scope
> - Closures can now have a bound object
> - Closures can now be either static or non-static
>
> - Closures defined in a place with an active scope a
Pierre Joye wrote:
>> I don't see how it is contradictory. SAPIs are self contained and
>> can't harm another SAPI, that's why we added this clause.
>
> This is where the modular/bundled discussion comes in?
No, it is not, absolutely not. Please do not hijack again this thread
with this disc
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> I don't see how it is contradictory. SAPIs are self contained and
>> can't harm another SAPI, that's why we added this clause.
>
> This is where the modular/bundled discussion comes in?
No, it is not, absolutely not. Please do not hijack aga
Pierre Joye wrote:
"No feature addition after final x.y.0 release (or x.0.0). Self
> contained features or new SAPIs could be carefully considered on a
> case by case basis."
> I would re-phrase the No feature addition to changing existing
> behavior, as it now seems a little bit contradictio
15 matches
Mail list logo
