From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Aug 2014, at 14:26, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>> For the exts I tried while I was testing/fixing phpng a couple of
>>> weeks ago, I'd to say that maintaining the same code base for phpn
On 6 August 2014 12:32, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>> >
>> Did we agree on that? The lang spec was originally written to 5.6 to
>> have a relatively stable target, but (in my mind at least) was meant
>> to track master as we move the language forwa
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > I think dropping this behavior is a good idea, but I'm confused by the
> > reasoning related to the langspec.
> > This rfc targets php.next (which is a safe move as this has BC break
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I think dropping this behavior is a good idea, but I'm confused by the
> reasoning related to the langspec.
> This rfc targets php.next (which is a safe move as this has BC break albeit
> would require some questionable code), but the langspec
hi Dan,
you can look into the difference for each particular extension using git.
e.g.
git diff master..phpng -- ext/bcmath
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> >I have no problem with changing this
> >habit, but I do have an issue with changing
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zeev,
>>
>> >I have no problem with changing this
>> >habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
>> >particular vote.
>>
>> Agreed, changing rules ret
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> >I have no problem with changing this
> >habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
> >particular vote.
>
> Agreed, changing rules retroactively is bad. Considering improving
> practices for the future is go
Hi Zeev,
>I have no problem with changing this
>habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
>particular vote.
Agreed, changing rules retroactively is bad. Considering improving
practices for the future is good.
>To your specific feedback, there's a migration document to ex
On 6 Aug 2014, at 16:01, Ralph Schindler wrote:
> When you put it like this, that further enhances my argument for adding
> a call() and/or a bindCall(). Having to rely on __invoke() means
> you're coding around and relying on an implementation detail, as opposed
> to the class's published API.
Hi!
On 5 August 2014 18:01, Ralph Schindler
wrote: At the risk of stating the obvious, can’t you just use
$f->bar->__invoke()?
Actually, it was not immediately obvious that __invoke() was a
method from the docs as it is a side-note and not in the class
signature breakout. Oops! ;)
http://p
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 14:26, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> For the exts I tried while I was testing/fixing phpng a couple of
>> weeks ago, I'd to say that maintaining the same code base for phpng
>> and 5.x is simply too hard, way too many APIs chang
On 6 Aug 2014, at 14:26, Pierre Joye wrote:
> For the exts I tried while I was testing/fixing phpng a couple of
> weeks ago, I'd to say that maintaining the same code base for phpng
> and 5.x is simply too hard, way too many APIs changes, many of them
> cannot be detected at compile time, introd
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Votes area almost never pre-announced. I have no problem with changing
>> this
>> habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
>> particular vote.
>>
>
On 06/08/14 14:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I believe it's impractical to keep shared codebases for extensions between
> PHP 5.x and PHPNG. Dmitry - please correct me if I'm wrong...
Do we actually have a list of what is NOT going to work once this
happens? I am still not in a position to test phpng
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Votes area almost never pre-announced. I have no problem with changing
> this
> habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
> particular vote.
>
> Regarding your points, there's a mandatory discussion period du
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:57 PM
> To: Dmitry Stogov
> Cc: Andrea Faulds; Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Move the phpng branch to master
>
> That's ok - how are the porting guidelines
Dan,
Votes area almost never pre-announced. I have no problem with changing this
habit, but I do have an issue with changing it retroactively for a
particular vote.
Regarding your points, there's a mandatory discussion period during which
you should have brought these comments, instead of now.
On 30 Jul 2014, at 03:31, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The intdiv RFC is put to the vote, with separate votes for the integer
> division operator (%%) and intdiv function, the latter as a fallback. I would
> highly encourage you to read the discussion in the “[RFC] intdiv()” thread
> and the whole
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Fully agree with Andrea. I don't think there's a point in debating the
> majority question to no end, because ultimately, it's open for
> interpretation. I feel very, very confident about my interpretation - for
> reasons I explained already
Hi,
It would be good if people announced that they were going to open
things to vote with a warning, rather than just throwing the voting
open.
The RFC is nowhere complete in it's details for people to make
rational decisions. e.g. the section on 'RFC impact' has this for the
impact on extensions
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:51 PM
> To: Jonny Stirling
> Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Move the phpng branch to master
>
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:47, Jonny Stirling
wrote:
>
> > I lov
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> > On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > > I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
> > >
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
> > >
> > > Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
> >
> >
> >
> > Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
>
> I voted Yes, but I have to ask: Is there
Hi Andrea,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
> >
> >
> >
> > Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
>
> I voted Yes, but I have to
On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:47, Jonny Stirling wrote:
> I love how you've just completely ignored any previous discussion around
> the required majority issue.
Has it really been *ignored*? Just because someone wants something doesn’t mean
you have to give it.
Under Zeev’s (and as it so happens, my)
hi Zeev,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
>>
>>
>>
>> Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
>
> I voted Yes, but I have to ask: Is there
Zeev,
I love how you've just completely ignored any previous discussion around
the required majority issue. It's is certainly enlightening that questions
specifically directed at you in multiple threads have gone unanswered when
trying to work out which is actually required. Instead, you just take
Lester Caine wrote (on 06/08/2014):
On 06/08/14 11:16, Rowan Collins wrote:
According to the bug report, HHVM also accepts multiple default blocks,
but uses the first rather than the last. It's probably not worth
implementing specific code there to take the last default label just in
order to ad
On 6 Aug 2014, at 13:36, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
>
>
>
> Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
I voted Yes, but I have to ask: Is there anything in master that’s not in
phpng, i.e., is it completely up-to-dat
I opened the voting on the phpng RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpng#vote
Voting ends on Thursday, August 14th.
Please vote!
Zeev
On 06/08/14 11:16, Rowan Collins wrote:
> According to the bug report, HHVM also accepts multiple default blocks,
> but uses the first rather than the last. It's probably not worth
> implementing specific code there to take the last default label just in
> order to adhere to a 5.6 spec, but is wort
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 06/08/2014):
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think dropping this behavior is a good idea, but I'm confused by the
>> reasoning related to the langspec.
>> This rfc targets php.next (which is a safe move as this has BC break
>> albeit
Ferenc Kovacs wrote (on 06/08/2014):
Hi,
I think dropping this behavior is a good idea, but I'm confused by the
reasoning related to the langspec.
This rfc targets php.next (which is a safe move as this has BC break albeit
would require some questionable code), but the langspec was agreed to be
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple
>
> 'Cause this code is silly (even if it had case blocks), but we allow it:
>
> switch ($expr) {
> default:
> notExecuted();
> break;
> default:
> executed();
> }
>
> --
> PHP I
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> yet another stupid implementation driven behavior :)
>
> +1 for master.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
Yep, definitely yes +1.
Julien.Pauli
yet another stupid implementation driven behavior :)
+1 for master.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Sebastian Bergmann
wrote:
> Am 06.08.2014 um 06:38 schrieb Sara Golemon:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/switch.default.multiple
>
> Makes sense to me; +1.
>
> --
> PHP Internals
36 matches
Mail list logo
