2012/4/16 Ralph Schindler ra...@ralphschindler.com
I am not quite following. There is no functional difference between
class, CLASS, or Class. The parser is case insensitive with regards
to keywords, which class or T_CLASS is on of. The code snipped I showed
there was from the .phpt test
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net wrote:
Hi,
It would be better to vote
- PHP will have script only (tag less) code or not
then
- How it will be implemented
Regards,
That idea was raised a few times in the past, but Stas and others
expressed, they
What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in place
if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template file with direct
HTML output?
I like that proposal and take it over any other, because it
16 апреля 2012 г. 2:52 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
I posted the bellow text in other thread, but i should have it post here,
so i'm reposting it to this thread.
Well, it's time for me
Arvids,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in place
if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
16 апреля 2012 г. 2:52 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.com
wrote:
I posted the bellow text in other thread, but i
Hi,
I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partly
it was my fault):
http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html
So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
1. What are the requirements for getting voting rights in the wiki
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
additional optional second param to allow for developers to define in place
if he want's a pure PHP file to be included or a template file with
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I sent an email last year about this issue, but it got sidetracked (partly
it was my fault):
http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg54267.html
So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
I should say that I do not understand in full how it suppose to work. From
the RFC it is absolutely unclear how to deal with this and the mixed code
load approach is just dismissed as invalid concern, quoting from the RFC:
Besides, such an allowance is completely unnecessary anyway, since using
16 апреля 2012 г. 11:24 пользователь Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
additional optional second param to allow for developers to
hi Tom,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge
without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote
with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response
to each.
Hey Simon,
As the class-definition for Moo is missing, I think it's an empty
class (like Baz) on the root-level defined somewhere else, right?
Otherwise this should do something else than guessing the class-name.
If you look at the patch, this feature is not doing anything PHP doesn't
We could vote on whether we like the idea in principle, with the condition that
the final proposal pass separately as a fully detailed rfc. That way you are
telling the authors of these rfcs whether to keep trying and in what direction,
but you are not forced to accept the end product. I would
These tools already strip ?php tags, they would need minimal changes to
support rolling in a .phpp file unmodified. Unless I am missing something?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted the bellow text in other thread, but i
2012/4/16 Ralph Schindler ra...@ralphschindler.com
... PHP does not invoke the autoloader to determine if the class name
actually exists as a declaration somewhere, it simply resolves it according
to some very specific rules (in the case of this patch, carried out by
16 апреля 2012 г. 16:09 пользователь Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com написал:
These tools already strip ?php tags, they would need minimal changes to
support rolling in a .phpp file unmodified. Unless I am missing something?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks
Oh I see. Yes, this is one of the reasons I don't like the pure can't
include non-pure idea.
Another reason: you can't write generic algorithms. PHP 5.4 has much
improved support for anonymous functions, so we should see an increase
in libraries that take a few functions as parameters and carry
Also, Kris's proposal requires that an additional flag be tracked all
the way down through the stack of requires and includes from the point
where pure mode is first encountered, remembering that we're in pure
mode. Note that this flag cannot be a global variable because .php
files that were
16 апреля 2012 г. 11:05 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
Arvids,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.com
wrote:
What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/require with
additional optional second param to allow for
For some this is sufficient, for others (like myself) getting rid of
the initial ?php for pure files is a primary motivation.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
16 апреля 2012 г. 11:05 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
Arvids,
In my example the property was not static.
To make it clear - it cannot be static for this to work.
The instance of the class assigned to a property will be created when the
object is created -most likely
it will have to be done before the constructor is called so that the instance
of property
On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
That's sad really, to be honest.
I wonder if people even use this:
echo include 'foo.bar', 'baz';
Probably not, Try it! you get:
1baz
It actually works more like
echo (include foo.bar), 'baz';
than
echo include( foo.bar), 'baz';
On 04/10/2012 03:46 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I think my main point still stands: if the git emails are too obscure to
follow, let us know what goes in via email to internals.
Do you want to bring the NEWS updating process into this discussion?
Sure, though that would be another
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.comwrote:
On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
That's sad really, to be honest.
I wonder if people even use this:
echo include 'foo.bar', 'baz';
Probably not, Try it! you get:
1baz
It actually works more
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com
Also, Kris's proposal requires that an additional flag be tracked all
the way down through the stack of requires and includes from the point
where pure mode is first encountered, remembering that we're in pure
mode. Note that this flag cannot be a global
On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmervch...@developersdesk.comwrote:
More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms:
include foo.bar, 'baz';
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected ',' in bla.php on line xx
Regarding
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com wrote:
On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick
WIdmervch...@developersdesk.comwrote:
More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms:
include foo.bar, 'baz';
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick
WIdmervch...@developersdesk.comwrote:
More
Hi!
I think that once PHP-5.4.1 was branched, then PHP-5.4 should have
become 5.4.2-dev.
You're right.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
Hi!
So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
I think before going into these, it is important to answer this
question: what is the problem we're trying to solve?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP
On 04/16/2012 01:12 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I think that once PHP-5.4.1 was branched, then PHP-5.4 should have
become 5.4.2-dev.
You're right.
As an exercise, I submitted a pull request fixing this.
Chris
--
christopher.jo...@oracle.com
http://twitter.com/#!/ghrd
--
PHP Internals
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
I think before going into these, it is important to answer this
question: what is the problem we're trying to solve?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I reject the premise of that question because it implies that nothing in
PHP should ever be changed unless it's fixing something that's broken.
By that standard, it would be virtually impossible to get any new features
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
I reject the premise of that question because it implies that nothing in
PHP should ever be changed unless it's fixing something that's
I think the 'as' solution is smart.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov
nikita@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM,
This has been added in version 1.1.1 of the
source_files_without_opening_tag RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
I think the 'as' solution is smart.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig
Hey guys, can we move the RFC updates back to the threads for each RFC?
Subsequent discussion should go there as well.
--Kris
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
This has been added in version 1.1.1 of the
source_files_without_opening_tag RFC:
Please excuse me for butting in without immediate context. I'd just like to
support the idea of a vote on this concept without getting into specifics.
If the vote is positive then we can argue the various merits of the
competing RFCs knowing that we at least agree in general. On the other hand
if
Kris, you have been talking recently about allowing for a mode that
permits the inclusion of .php from .php... something (whatever we're
calling this middle mode's recommended file extension).
I think having three modes is overkill, but some people think having
even two modes is overkill, so I'm
Such a vote would make sense if it were clearly expressed that the
final RFC would also be subject to a binding vote, so there is no risk
of being forced to accept an implementation whose particular details
are unacceptable to you.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Arpad Ray array...@gmail.com
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com
Kris, you have been talking recently about allowing for a mode that
permits the inclusion of .php from .php... something (whatever we're
calling this middle mode's recommended file extension).
I think having three modes is overkill, but some people
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com wrote:
Such a vote would make sense if it were clearly expressed that the
final RFC would also be subject to a binding vote, so there is no risk
of being forced to accept an implementation whose particular details
are unacceptable
Just a reminder, see the below message.
On Apr 13, 2012 3:43 PM, Daniel Brown danbr...@php.net wrote:
Greetings, all;
This coming Monday, 16 April, 2012, between the hours of 18:00 and
20:00 EDT (22:00 to 00:00 GMT), the one of the primary php.net servers
will be undergoing a critical
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
So this time, I would like focusing only on the following:
I think before going into these, it is important to answer this
question: what is the problem we're trying to solve?
the voting RFC explicitly
and we're back.
Sorry for the interruption. I know many of you were missing the RFC
discussions and debates on Internals. I'll try not to let it happen
again. ;-P
If anyone sees any issues that could be related to the below, please let us
know ASAP on syst...@php.net and/or
16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
That's sad really, to be honest.
I wonder if people even use this:
echo include
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks arvids.godj...@gmail.comwrote:
16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
That's
What happens if two of them pass?
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.comнаписал:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer vch...@developersdesk.com
wrote:
On 4/16/2012 3:31
I think updating your RFC to cover the broad points that have changed
is worth it, even if small differences will continue to be expressed
about the syntax.
2012/4/16 Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com:
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell t...@punkave.com
Kris, you have been talking recently about allowing
Hi!
the voting RFC explicitly states that it is possible for (some) non-vcs
users to vote, but there isn't any formal process on how can someone
apply for voting karma, and what is the decision making process on this.
And what is the problem in not having the formal process?
which went
@Ferenc Thanks for the thoughtful analysis! I must confess I'm a bit
groggy at the moment so I'll have to go over it later.
sure, take your time.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
the voting RFC explicitly states that it is possible for (some) non-vcs
users to vote, but there isn't any formal process on how can someone
apply for voting karma, and what is the decision making process on
Hi!
no, it only means that our internal processes aren't clear or easily
accessible.
people outside the circle can't do much, than asking people inside to
let them in.
If somebody is an outsider to PHP development, why do you think giving
him a deciding vote on it would be a good thing? One
Hi!
In any case, your selective quoting destroyed the main point of my
e-mail -- that is, this problem implicates these questions: is
9223372036854775808 different from 9223372036854775808? Is
9223372036854775808 still deemed to represent an integer, even
though we cannot represent it as
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
no, it only means that our internal processes aren't clear or easily
accessible.
people outside the circle can't do much, than asking people inside to
let them in.
If somebody is an outsider to PHP
Hi!
I'm not sure about it. AFAIK when I implemented my patch to restrict the
voting to the vcs users + the voting wiki group, we lost that ability.
(see http://www.mail-archive.com/internals@lists.php.net/msg51932.html for
the history of that change)
I don't see any indication there that
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
I'm not sure about it. AFAIK when I implemented my patch to restrict the
voting to the vcs users + the voting wiki group, we lost that ability.
(see
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.comwrote:
Hi!
no, it only means that our internal processes aren't clear or easily
accessible.
people outside the circle can't do much, than asking people inside to
let them in.
If somebody is an outsider to PHP
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about people
who are established PHP developers but who generally don't participate in
the development/discussion of PHP core? An argument could be made that, as
the users of PHP, they should be able to have some say in its
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
people who are established PHP developers but who generally don't
participate in the development/discussion of PHP core? An argument could
be made that,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
people who are established PHP developers but who generally don't
participate
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
Kris Craig wrote:
An argument could be made that, as the users of PHP, they should be
able to have some say in its development.
As a PHP developer (that is, a developer who writes in PHP), I'd agree,
*to an extent*. There are certainly things that I'd like to be able to
vote on (such as
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Ryan McCue li...@rotorised.com wrote:
Kris Craig wrote:
An argument could be made that, as the users of PHP, they should be able
to have some say in its development.
As a PHP developer (that is, a developer who writes in PHP), I'd agree,
*to an extent*.
Stas:
Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list, could
we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't believe
that you used the word him. What about her? Yeah, her as in myself and
every other woman who codes with PHP whether to earn her
Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
believe that you used the word him. What about her? Yeah, her as in
myself and every other woman who codes with PHP whether to earn her
On 17 April 2012 11:42, sle...@pipeline.com wrote:
Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
believe that you used the word him. What about her? Yeah, her as in
myself and every
So, at current, is this small enough for just a pull request, or does
this deserve its own RFC?
-ralph
On 4/14/12 2:50 PM, Ralph Schindler wrote:
Hi all,
There are many different use cases were in code we expect classes names
as arguments to functions as fully qualified names. We do this in
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, sle...@pipeline.com wrote:
Stas:
Just b/c there are rarely any women at all that participate on this list,
could we at list maintain a facade of gender neutrality? I seriously can't
believe that you used the word him. What about her? Yeah, her as in
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
people who are
71 matches
Mail list logo
