Number of posts to internals since Jan.1,2012 (top 15):
[kris.cr...@gmail.com]=> 249
[smalys...@sugarcrm.com] => 193
[pierre@gmail.com]=> 146
[yohg...@ohgaki.net] => 105
[t...@punkave.com] => 98
[tyr...@gmail.com]=> 96
[ircmax...@gmail.co
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>>
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
people who are established PHP develo
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, 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
> myself and e
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 Z
On 17 April 2012 11:42, 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 other woman
> 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 ear
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
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Ryan McCue 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*. There are c
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 addit
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>>
Just to play devil's advocate (Satan and I go way back), what about
people who are established PHP dev
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs 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/dis
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs 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, as the
>
>
> 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 4:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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 d
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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.htmlfor
> > th
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 1:58 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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 d
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
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? O
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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 wh
>
>
> @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
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 u
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell
> 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.
>
Hmm ok, I'll update it first chance I get. Keep in mind though it might
still be a few days as I work during
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell
> What happens if two of them pass?
>
Come again?
--Kris
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 :
>
>
> 2012/4/16 Tom Boutell
>>
>> Kris, you have been talking recently about allowing for a mode that
>> permits the
What happens if two of them pass?
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> 16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer > >wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's sad really, to be
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> 16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer > >wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/16/2012 3:31 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's sad really, to be honest.
>> >> I wonder if people ev
16 апреля 2012 г. 22:02 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer >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 'foo.bar', 'baz';
> >>>
> >>
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 https://bugs.p
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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 states that it is p
Just a reminder, see the below message.
On Apr 13, 2012 3:43 PM, "Daniel Brown" 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 preventati
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tom Boutell 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 to you.
>
> O
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell
> 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
> e
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 wrote:
> Please excuse
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 p
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
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 wrote:
> This has been added in version 1.1.1 of the
> source_files_without_opening_tag RFC:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/s
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 wrote:
> I think the 'as' solution is smart.
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>> On Mon,
I think the 'as' solution is smart.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer
>> wrote:
>> > On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Kris Craig 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 vi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Kris Craig 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
> added.
>
> With t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> 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
>
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
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 Inte
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: http://w
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer
> wrote:
> > On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick
> >> WIdmerwrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> More important include doesn't currently allow multiple pa
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Rick WIdmer wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick
>> WIdmerwrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> More important include doesn't currently allow multiple parms:
>>>
>>> include "foo.bar", 'baz';
>>>
>>> Parse error: syntax erro
On 4/16/2012 1:02 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmerwrote:
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 include/require, I agree that a
2012/4/16 Tom Boutell
> 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 bec
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Rick WIdmer 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 'foo.bar', 'baz';
>>>
>>
> Probably not, Try it! you get:
>
> 1baz
>
> It actually works more like
>
>
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 discuss
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';
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
For some this is sufficient, for others (like myself) getting rid of
the initial wrote:
> 16 апреля 2012 г. 11:05 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
>
>> Arvids,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks > > wrote:
>>
>>> What happened with the proposal/RFC for expanding include/requ
16 апреля 2012 г. 11:05 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
> Arvids,
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks > wrote:
>
>> 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 wa
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 loaded
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
16 апреля 2012 г. 16:09 пользователь Tom Boutell написал:
> These tools already strip 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
> wrote:
>
> > I posted the bellow text in other thread, but i
2012/4/16 Ralph Schindler
>
> ... 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
> zend_resolve_class_name()).
>
> If I am withi
These tools already strip wrote:
> 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 to remind about the techique many use (and some
> frameworks provide it out of the box) - the application file concatinati
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 w
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
already
hi Tom,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Tom Boutell 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. We could then
16 апреля 2012 г. 11:24 пользователь Ferenc Kovacs написал:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks
> wrote:
>
>> 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
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
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Ferenc Kovacs 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:
>
> 1. W
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> 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?
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
wi
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> 16 апреля 2012 г. 2:52 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks > > wrote:
>>
>>> I posted the bellow text in other thread, but i should have it post here,
>>> so i'm reposting it to this th
Arvids,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Arvids Godjuks
wrote:
> 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
> HTM
16 апреля 2012 г. 2:52 пользователь Kris Craig написал:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Arvids Godjuks
> wrote:
>
>> 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 to remind about the techique ma
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 give
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki 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 (and mayb
73 matches
Mail list logo
