Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 29/10/2014 00:35, Stas Malyshev a écrit : > Hi! > >> phpdbg is under php.net ; every decision about phpdbg should then >> be debatted with all the team, and new ideas, such as a protocol, >> RFC'ed, whoever are the maintainers of the code. It's lik

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

On 28/10/2014 15:08, Andrea Faulds wrote: On 28 Oct 2014, at 14:24, Rowan Collins wrote: Andrea Faulds wrote on 28/10/2014 14:08: On 28 Oct 2014, at 07:17, Jordi Boggiano wrote: I like it, except for the fact that if you add a custom getter to a property suddenly it becomes readonly unles

Re: [PHP-DEV] VCS Account Request: jbafford

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, John Bafford wrote: > I would like access to edit the wiki and submit RFCs. I've given you access to the wiki's RFC space. cheers, Derick -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] VCS Account Request: jbafford

I would like access to edit the wiki and submit RFCs. Thanks, -John -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

Hi! > phpdbg is under php.net ; every decision about phpdbg should then be > debatted with all the team, and new ideas, such as a protocol, RFC'ed, > whoever are the maintainers of the code. It's like that for every > piece of code, of every extension. This is PHP process. If you dont > want to D

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

> $_FILES (whose name is already method-agnostic) The name appears method-agnostic but the implementation obviously isn't. It works with multipart/form-data, which is tightly coupled with POST, but which isn't the only way to transfer files, not by a long shot. If you ignore the HTTP method you'r

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

On 28/10/14 16:58, Ben Ramsey wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Will Fitch wrote: >> >> 100% agree. Perhaps focusing on getting pecl/http v2 added as ext >> or core should be the real discussion: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http >> . > > > I woul

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

1. Sure, but the frustrating thing is that the C code (for mime-parsing) is already there and just not being used for non-POST methods. Why make everyone use pecl/framework code that duplicates what exists in PHP already (albeit for POST only)? 2. You're right. That would be too many. That's why a

Re: [PHP-DEV] New globals for PUT and DELETE

> On Oct 26, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Will Fitch wrote: > > 100% agree. Perhaps focusing on getting pecl/http v2 added as ext or core > should be the real discussion: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http > . I would be supportive of this, and I’ll even volunteer to

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

> Am 28.10.2014 um 14:50 schrieb Andrea Faulds : > >> On 28 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Julien Pauli wrote: >> >> When PHP 5.6 has been released, few weeks/months ago, I explicitely >> stated Ferenc (RMing 5.6 together with me), that *it is not a normal >> thing to have an external domain for phpdbg* >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

> On 28 Oct 2014, at 14:24, Rowan Collins wrote: > > Andrea Faulds wrote on 28/10/2014 14:08: >>> >On 28 Oct 2014, at 07:17, Jordi Boggiano wrote: >>> > >>> >I like it, except for the fact that if you add a custom getter to a >>> >property suddenly it becomes readonly unless you remember to ad

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

Andrea Faulds wrote on 28/10/2014 14:08: >On 28 Oct 2014, at 07:17, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > >I like it, except for the fact that if you add a custom getter to a property suddenly it becomes readonly unless you remember to add "; set" to the end of the block, right? Well, no. If you choose to s

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > Am 25.10.2014 um 20:20 schrieb Stas Malyshev: > > somewhat relaxed rules there, but even then introducing new debugging > > protocol into PHP core seems to be something that warrants some > > notification. > > That would have been my n

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

> On 28 Oct 2014, at 09:46, Chris Wright wrote: > > Sorry, but I don't like this. This means that the visibility modifier is no > longer next to the thing that it applies to, I wouldn’t say that. The visibility modifier is an aspect of the property itself, not its implementation. A property

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

> On 28 Oct 2014, at 07:17, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > > I like it, except for the fact that if you add a custom getter to a property > suddenly it becomes readonly unless you remember to add "; set" to the end of > the block, right? Well, no. If you choose to specify getters and setters, and on

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

Chris Wright wrote on 28/10/2014 09:46: I would suggest something like this: public $foobar { get { return $this->bar * $this->foo; } private set($value) { $this->bar = $value / $this->foo } } ...where only a single visibility modifier is permitted on the left, and this is treated as t

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Using objects as keys

Hi Stas, On 27/10/2014 18:39, Etienne Kneuss wrote: > I think it should be made clear that what the target of your RFC is not to > support objects as keys, what you propose instead is an implicit > translation from: > > $a[$obj] > to > $a[$obj->__hash()] > > This is clearly different. I agree t

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > >> On 28 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Julien Pauli wrote: >> >> When PHP 5.6 has been released, few weeks/months ago, I explicitely >> stated Ferenc (RMing 5.6 together with me), that *it is not a normal >> thing to have an external domain for phpdbg

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

Jordi Boggiano wrote on 28/10/2014 07:17: How about this instead for readonly: public $foobar { get { return $this->bar * $this->foo; }; readonly } And if the flag isn't there, set is implicitly present. That'd mean you also can keep "public readonly $foobar;" as a short

Re: [PHP-DEV] disallow non-static method calls with self/static in PHP 7

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Robert Stoll wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> >> >> I just stumbled over a method call of a non-static method with self and >> was asking myself again, why does PHP support >> this behaviour. An example to outline wh

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

> On 28 Oct 2014, at 13:43, Julien Pauli wrote: > > When PHP 5.6 has been released, few weeks/months ago, I explicitely > stated Ferenc (RMing 5.6 together with me), that *it is not a normal > thing to have an external domain for phpdbg* > > This has never happened before, FWIR > > Every code

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:27 PM, David Soria Parra wrote: > On 2014-10-26, Bob Weinand wrote: >>> Am 26.10.2014 um 17:23 schrieb Lester Caine : >>> >>> On 26/10/14 15:41, Bob Weinand wrote: Ask them at PhpStorm. They were pleased to not have to use DBGp for it. They just initially reque

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Serialize filtering

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 27/10/2014 09:03, Stas Malyshev a écrit : > Hi! > > I'd like to have a vote on unserialize() improvement proposal > outlined here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/secure_unserialize > > soon-ish, but since discussion on it has been more than a year ago >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Using objects as keys

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > > As others noted, it also prevents a full-fledged objects-as-key > > implementation in the future. > You do realize to have such implementation we'd need to rewrite our hash > layer completely and also introduce the concept of immutab

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

On 27 October 2014 20:27, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > > On 26 Oct 2014, at 19:16, Rowan Collins wrote: > > > > I just had a thought on both the naming and future-proofing concerns of > this proposal: what about pre-emptively reserving the skeleton of the > syntax needed for accessors, without actua

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jordi Boggiano wrote: > On 27/10/2014 20:27, Andrea Faulds wrote: >> >> Tentative syntax. But this way, the visibility stays on the left. I think >> that’s good for readability. If you omit the second specifier, then the >> first one applies to getting and setting,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly Properties

On 27/10/2014 20:27, Andrea Faulds wrote: Tentative syntax. But this way, the visibility stays on the left. I think that’s good for readability. If you omit the second specifier, then the first one applies to getting and setting, as now. If you include it, the first one applies to getting, the