On 01/14/2013 10:12 PM, Herman Radtke wrote:
If it is called "array_pluck" it should remove the data in question from the
original array. (I'm not saying that is a desirable feature here, I'm just
saying that makes more sense based on the meaning of the name you seem to
prefer.)
Why do you think
> If it is called "array_pluck" it should remove the data in question from the
> original array. (I'm not saying that is a desirable feature here, I'm just
> saying that makes more sense based on the meaning of the name you seem to
> prefer.)
Why do you think pluck is destructive? In most examples
Hi!
> OK, so now the plan is to merge this onto 5.4:
>
> https://github.com/cataphract/php-src/compare/php:PHP-5.4...cataphract:strtr_wu94_54
This one looks mostly harmless, so if all strtr tests still pass I think
it's OK for 5.4.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www
On 01/14/2013 05:16 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Dear PHP/Zend folks :
This is a bug I think. I recently saw that PHP had been updated to 5.4.10
and I
decided to update my php bits in /usr/local. I was quite surprised to see in the
configure output this warning about bison :
checking for b
Ok, let me try again.
Yeah, I know the C++ standard don't allow that semi-colon there... but both GCC
and CLang won't complain if you add it there, and GCC accepts it even in Java.
I've seem lots of code where people put it there, and I always get a little
frustrated when using PHP because I
Dear PHP/Zend folks :
This is a bug I think. I recently saw that PHP had been updated to 5.4.10
and I
decided to update my php bits in /usr/local. I was quite surprised to see in
the
configure output this warning about bison :
checking for bison... bison -y
checking for bison version...
On 01/14/2013 01:55 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:45:03 +0100, Gustavo Lopes
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:40:31 +0100, Gustavo Lopes
wrote:
The algorithm behaves very poorly in this case because at each position of the
text, all the substrings starting there and with
On 01/14/2013 02:19 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
Hi Ben,
Am 14.01.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Pierre Joye :
[...]
Up to you, but I'd to suggest again to re do the vote and add the
naming option, easy, clear, open.
I was one of the people changing from yes to no because of the name. I like the
functional
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:43:31 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
- Do you want to include the functionality: yes/no
- If you want to include it, which name should it have:
array_column/array_pluck
? You said earlier:
I was one of the people changing from yes to no because
of the name. I like the
It’s quite simple:
- Do you want to include the functionality: yes/no
- If you want to include it, which name should it have:
array_column/array_pluck
Am 14.01.2013 um 23:23 schrieb Gustavo Lopes :
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:16:52 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:01
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:16:52 +0100, Pierre Joye
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
I've already removed the array_pluck() alias. Unfortunately, after
removing the alias, it appears that some have changed their votes from
"yes" to "no," because they preferred the
Hi Ben,
Am 14.01.2013 um 23:16 schrieb Pierre Joye :
[...]
> Up to you, but I'd to suggest again to re do the vote and add the
> naming option, easy, clear, open.
I was one of the people changing from yes to no because of the name. I like the
functionality but I prefer no new array function over
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> I've already removed the array_pluck() alias. Unfortunately, after removing
> the alias, it appears that some have changed their votes from "yes" to "no,"
> because they preferred the other function name.
>
> That said, I'm not going to call f
On 1/14/13 3:49 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi!
Btw, really willing to have this function but I agree with other here,
the alias must go. It makes no sense to introduce a function and an
alias to it at the same time.
Maybe restart the vote and let choose function name.
Options:
1. array_column
2. a
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:45:03 +0100, Gustavo Lopes
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:40:31 +0100, Gustavo Lopes
wrote:
The algorithm behaves very poorly in this case because at each position
of the text, all the substrings starting there and with size between m
and n (where m is the size o
hi!
Btw, really willing to have this function but I agree with other here,
the alias must go. It makes no sense to introduce a function and an
alias to it at the same time.
Maybe restart the vote and let choose function name.
Options:
1. array_column
2. array_pluck
3. none of them
Thanks for yo
Nope, it wasn’t rejected, there was simply no response for a really long time:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/202
Am 14.01.2013 um 22:06 schrieb Herman Radtke :
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Levi Morrison
> wrote:
>> The real problem here (in my opinion) is that `array_filter` does
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> The real problem here (in my opinion) is that `array_filter` does not
> pass the key information to the callback. If you could do that, you
> could select columns that way.
I opened a PR with this feature, but it was rejected.
--
Herman R
Any news?
Am 04.01.2013 um 13:45 schrieb Pierre Joye :
> No need to create another function for that. I will do it once I am back at
> work next week.
> On Jan 3, 2013 12:33 PM, "Lars Strojny" wrote:
>
>> No objection from my POV. Going to merge it in around a week, if no one
>> objects.
>>
>>
Probably, it will be better to give a link to the one of examples of
AOP integration for laravel framework (requires 5.4.10 to work):
https://github.com/lisachenko/laravel-aspect (just clone, install
dependencies and look at result)
I need to perform weaving of aspects into the original methods, s
I do not use static methods, frameworks and applications use them )).
I just want to extend logic of class methods in the application with
custom behavior (Logging, Caching) and preserve original scope. It's
already done for PHP 5.4 with closures and my library works well with
any PHP framework. F
2013/1/14 Alexander Lissachenko
> My use-case is weaving aspects into the methods. Yeah! )
>
> So, I take the original class, rename it and then create a decorator
> class instead of original class with overridden dynamic and static
> methods. Method in the decorator should make some specific log
Alexander,
So, I take the original class, rename it and then create a decorator
> class instead of original class with overridden dynamic and static
> methods. Method in the decorator should make some specific logic and
> then just invokes the original static method with Reflection, but the
> scop
My use-case is weaving aspects into the methods. Yeah! )
So, I take the original class, rename it and then create a decorator
class instead of original class with overridden dynamic and static
methods. Method in the decorator should make some specific logic and
then just invokes the original stati
2013/1/14 Alexander Lissachenko
> Hi! It's my first letter here )
>
> I want to suggest a small improvement for ReflectionMethod->invoke()
> and ReflectionMethod->invokeArgs() methods to support LSB for
> overridden static methods. Currently, for invoking static methods
> first argument should be
Scott,
> I did review these, and I like them, but I think they should be added
> separately, especially since they deal more with objects than arrays.
>
> As long as the work with objects that implement ArrayAccess then it should
> be fine?
>
For consistency sake, I would recommend that it does n
On 14 Jan 2013, at 12:57, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> On 1/14/13 11:54 AM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2013, at 11:37, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/11/13 6:17 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
I've opened voting for the array_column() function RFC.
You can vote at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/a
On 1/14/13 11:54 AM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 11:37, Ben Ramsey wrote:
On 1/11/13 6:17 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
I've opened voting for the array_column() function RFC.
You can vote at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column#voting
I have updated the pull request by removing the
On 14 Jan 2013, at 11:37, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> On 1/11/13 6:17 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>> I've opened voting for the array_column() function RFC.
>>
>> You can vote at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column#voting
>
> I have updated the pull request by removing the array_pluck() alias. I favor
> t
On 1/11/13 6:17 PM, Ben Ramsey wrote:
I've opened voting for the array_column() function RFC.
You can vote at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column#voting
I have updated the pull request by removing the array_pluck() alias. I
favor the array_column() alias, as it is more in keeping with other
Hi Stas,
Sorry for delay, I'll able to take a look only tomorrow or after tomorrow.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Monday, January 14, 2013, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I made a fix for bug #63462 - https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/258 -
> which changes a bit how we do guards by unmangling the names
2013/1/14 Johannes Schlüter
> On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 04:10 +, Paulo Henrique Torrens wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm currently interested in two features I'd like to see in PHP; how do
> I proceed to request/propose them? I'd be glad to help implementing them as
> well, if necessary.
> >
> >
> > On
On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 04:10 +, Paulo Henrique Torrens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently interested in two features I'd like to see in PHP; how do I
> proceed to request/propose them? I'd be glad to help implementing them as
> well, if necessary.
>
>
> One of them is really simple, but would b
On 14/01/13 05:10, Paulo Henrique Torrens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently interested in two features I'd like to see in PHP; how do I
> proceed to request/propose them? I'd be glad to help implementing them as
> well, if necessary.
You should propose it here and then create a rfc about it in the p
On 14 January 2013 09:11, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC.
>
Is there any reason why this RFC was not listed on the RFC listing
page? I have added it to the "In voting phase" list, assuming you
merely forgot to add it anywhere.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Em 2013-01-11 0:32, Christopher Jones escreveu:
How does this compare with your baseline results?
I ran some benchmarks.
Configure line:
CC=gcc-mp-4.8 CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" ./configure --disable-all
--host=x86_64-apple-darwin10 --build=x86_64-apple-darwin10
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-25
On 14 January 2013 17:16, Laruence wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC.
> where is the voting page? :)
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol
Adam
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubsc
Arg, sorry :)
Here you go:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC.
>
> I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and
> the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between m
On 12 January 2013 08:17, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> I've opened voting for the array_column() function RFC.
>
> You can vote at https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array_column#voting
To be clear, I've voted -1 solely due to the function alias: if this
were reproposed with either name (I don't have a strong prefe
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC.
where is the voting page? :)
thanks
>
> I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and
> the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between many options.
>
> Thanks for
hi,
I opened the voting phase for the 5.3 EOL RFC.
I also changed the polls to reduce confusion between the announce and
the actual EOL, to avoid equal results between many options.
Thanks for your upcoming votes and let focus and 5.5+ asap :)
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepim
Hi!
> function multi() {
> return 10, 20;
> };
This can be done with:
function multi() {
return [10, 20];
}
list($x, $y) = multi();
However, sum() won't work this way:
> echo sum(multi()); // echoes 30
But can work this way:
call_user_func_array("sum", multi());
--
Stanislav Ma
Hi!
I made a fix for bug #63462 - https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/258 -
which changes a bit how we do guards by unmangling the names before
applying guards. This is a slight change of behavior and also means that
all private vars with the same name would use the same guard (all
protected and p
43 matches
Mail list logo
