Hi!
> In summary: should abstract protected constructors be inaccessible by
> siblings, as is true of __clone and __destruct? Should __construct, __clone
> and __destruct always be accessible in relatives, as is true of other
> methods? Depending on the answers, there could be a documentation issu
Hi!
> If there is no other discussion for this, I'd like to move this to the voting
> phase, any objects?
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-as-implemented
Sorry, I didn't have time to look into it yet (yes I know it was around
for a long time...) in detail. From the quick glance
Hi!
> I can't estimate the amount of breakage, but what about using underscore
> (literal _) without quotation marks?
This one is taken. See: http://us2.php.net/_
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On 04/18/2012 11:04 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> "default" is already a reserved keyword. It's used in switch
>> constructs. So it is safe to use :)
>
> Ah, silly me, indeed it is. Then I guess it doesn't hurt to add it as an
> option. Will do.
I can't estimate the amount of breakage, but
The only "open comments" I have on this project is the "read-only" and
"write-only" keywords.
Are the dashes acceptable or undesirable?
write-only was not in the original RFC but made sense to have the alternate to
read-only, any objections?
If there is no other discussion for this, I'd like t
I like this idea quite a bit, it would allow for more rapid deprecation of
outdated ideas. Wouldn't this require multiple interpreters though? Might add
a lot of complexity to the code as well, possibly not.
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Schultz [mailto:ras...@mindplay.dk]
Sent: Wed
On 04/19/2012 12:53 AM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:54:00 +0200, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
I think the documentation part in this case is not as problematic,
because the interface has been thoroughly documented in the ICU
project. Most of your next questions can be answered by re
hi,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> I've asked about this on IRC and it seems like there is no problem
> opening the vote now. Quoting:
>
> "The purpose of the waiting period is to allow time for discussion
> instead of rushing things before someone can find a problem. The
On 2012-04-19, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Just a though for named parameter, since it seems
> its becoming a relevant topic now.
>
> 2012/4/18 Daniel Macedo :
> > I agree with this! But for short array syntax we kept the => as in
> > $array = ["foo" => "bar"];
> > Not sure if this was a limitation,
On 2012-04-19, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2012/4/18 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> > My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple
> > commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I
> > think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Ugh I hate to throw a POO into this, but
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Nikita Popov
> wrote:
>>
>> Hey internals :)
>>
>> As there doesn't seem to be any further discussion regarding my RFC,
>> I've opened the vote:
>>
>> https://wik
2012/4/18 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
> My one comment, which others have raised, is readability of multiple
> commas -- TBH, at first glance it has the appearance of a mistake. I
> think those suggesting a keyword such as "default" make a good point in
> this regard -- it makes it 100% clear that yo
Hi everyone !
Just done a pull request (https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/62) on
php/php-src to allow the use of an expression with "new" keyword.
The patch allow the user to do :
Moreover, seems to me that it's not possible to subscribe to
git-pu...@lists.php.net from http://www.php.net/m
Hi,
Just a though for named parameter, since it seems
its becoming a relevant topic now.
2012/4/18 Daniel Macedo :
> I'll keep going offtopic a bit more.
> I would rather see named parameters implemented *prior* to this.
> Although maybe not instead, I think both might have their place.
>
> On We
I have to agree with Richard as a user-land developer. It looks nice, but
knowing how people can twist things I don't think I would like this feature
get implemented. It just add stuff that is crazy to debug.
Consider someone adds a property and initializes a user-land object. That
object has othe
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:54:00 +0200, Stas Malyshev
wrote:
I think the documentation part in this case is not as problematic,
because the interface has been thoroughly documented in the ICU
project. Most of your next questions can be answered by reading
http://userguide.icu-project.org/datetim
16 matches
Mail list logo
