Le 21/01/2013 10:10, Nikita Popov a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:17 AM, SPONEM, Benoît
b.spo...@baclesse.fr mailto:b.spo...@baclesse.fr wrote:
Hi
This typehinting will support the basic types (int, string) ?
Benoit
It will support them only when scalar typehints are
Hi internals!
I've opened the vote on the proposal for the alternative accessor
typehinting syntax:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax#voting
The vote is done under the assumption that the main accessors RFC will
pass. If it does not, then this proposal
Hello.
This may have already been covered, so apologies ...
With https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2#references,
the return by reference is handled by the use of get{}.
How about pass-by-reference for set{}?
Normally, a function definition dictates this.
But if $value is
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:03:09 +0100, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com
wrote:
I've opened the vote on the proposal for the alternative accessor
typehinting syntax:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-alternative-typehinting-syntax#voting
The vote is done under the assumption that
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
* And yes, next we'll start discussing extending this to other variables. Yes,
this is a slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are a real phenomenon. People
interested in this topic can read this reference [1].
I'm with you on that Gustavo - but I can't vote. I'm against
Gustavo
I've voted No due to concerns I mentioned in most part in IRC, but which
I think should be here on the record. So my voting statement:
I'm voting against this proposal because I think the proposed syntax
strongly suggests that the property is bound to a specific type. This has
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:28:12 +0100, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
wrote:
Gustavo
I've voted No due to concerns I mentioned in most part in IRC, but
which
I think should be here on the record. So my voting statement:
I'm voting against this proposal because I think the proposed
On 01/14/2013 01:18 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
Arg, sorry :)
Here you go:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/php53eol
Pierre,
Can you review this RFC and the votes? The wording 5.5 final
release needs assessing. You probably meant first 5.5 production
release. If anyone interpreted it as it is
Hello Nikita,
for me this maybe-of-type-typehinting is a small progression in the right
direction.
But Default values and nullability would break existing code as you need
to add a default null at design-time (BC break):
?php
class C {
public $a; // public string $a = null;
public $b;
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Crypto Compress
cryptocompr...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello Nikita,
for me this maybe-of-type-typehinting is a small progression in the right
direction.
But Default values and nullability would break existing code as you need
to add a default null at
Am 21.01.2013 23:59, schrieb Nikita Popov:
Sorry if it wasn't clear: The nullability stuff only applies if a
typehint
is used. If no typehint is used, then you can freely assign null,
regardless
of whether or not you have the = null in the declaration
(no typehint = everything's valid).
On 1/21/2013 12:36 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
Hello.
This may have already been covered, so apologies ...
With https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2#references,
the return by reference is handled by the use of get{}.
How about pass-by-reference for set{}?
It works, it was
On 1/20/2013 3:11 PM, Gordon Oheim wrote:
Am 17.01.2013 19:20, schrieb Clint Priest:
I'm happy to say that Property Accessors is ready for a vote for
inclusion in 5.5 release.
Nikita and I (as well as Stas a bit) have all been working hard to make
this happen for 5.5, voting and the
13 matches
Mail list logo
