Results for project php-src-nightly, build date 2015-09-29 05:12:58+03:00
commit: 2cacf5770daa13b0c498f48d1f7b20b6585a70bf
revision_date: 2015-09-28 17:01:16-07:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping
2, LLC 45 MB
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 08:49 +0200, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2015-09-29 7:30 GMT+02:00 Pierre Joye :
> > This model totally failed for us in the past. And given that these keywords
> > will be used for anything related to async APIs, let reserve them and put
> > our users on the safe s
We shouldn't reserve words on a whim ...
async/await doesn't solve any problems for multithreaded programming, at
all ... it solves problems for asynchronous programming, a different
concept ... let's not confuse the two ...
As mentioned you don't need any special syntax or reserved words for
asy
Hello internals,
I'd like to start a discussion of a proposal to allow closures to be
created in user-land without having to use a whole lot of reflection
code.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closurefromcallable
Thanks to Joe and Bob for the assistance in the patch.
cheers
Dan
Ack
--
PHP Internals
Hello internals,
Here is a draft RFC to make the callable type in PHP be consistent and
have much fewer surprises.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/consistent_callables
This RFC is probably not ready for the formal discussion that is held
before a vote on it can be held as there may be some more details
I'm trying to pass a new structure into the ZEND_NEW handler which will be
used to change the behaviour of zend_fetch_class_by_name.
The issue I'm having though is the operands won't support the new type
unless I compile it to zval, but I can't use zend_execute_data to reference
that in a pre-hand
Sorry, that was all over the place ... was on way out the door ...
What I should have said is that async/await don't directly solve problems,
they are nice calling conventions for async APIs, but the APIs must exist
before we talk about reserving or adding anything else.
The real problem is that
On 29/09/15 16:23, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion of a proposal to allow closures to be
> created in user-land without having to use a whole lot of reflection
> code.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closurefromcallable
>
> Thanks to Joe and Bob for the assi
+1 on the concept, I tried to argue it belongs in /Zend too ... still think
it does ...
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 29/09/15 16:23, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> > Hello internals,
> >
> > I'd like to start a discussion of a proposal to allow closures to be
> > created in
Hi Dan,
I'm not sure if i follow,
-> why not just do "return function() { $this->myPrivateMethod(); };" If
you really really need a closure to be returned that calls a private
method? because this should return a closure thats bound to the actual
object?
-> this should be easy enough to do userlan
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion of a proposal to allow closures to be
> created in user-land without having to use a whole lot of reflection
> code.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closurefromcallable
>
> Thanks to Joe and Bob
On 9/29/2015 6:52 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
We shouldn't reserve words on a whim ...
async/await doesn't solve any problems for multithreaded programming, at
all ... it solves problems for asynchronous programming, a different
concept ... let's not confuse the two ...
Actually, it does. Asynchro
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 3:29 AM, S.A.N wrote:> > Are
> there any future plans for - async/await?> This need to know now, not to use
> these words to constants, and class names...> > -- > PHP Internals - PHP
> Runtime Development Mailing List> To unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Sorry, I'm not able to make sense of what you are doing ... got a patch ?
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Dominic Grostate <
codekest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi, ive already started working with the handlers. I've set up the
> parser to accept addition syntax before the ctor.
lxr: zend_set_user_opcode_handler
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I think you are looking for opcode handlers, what you want to do is
> implement a ZEND_NEW handler ...
>
> For reference, xdebug and uopz overload handlers, as well as many other
> extensions ...
>
> Cheers
>
I think you are looking for opcode handlers, what you want to do is
implement a ZEND_NEW handler ...
For reference, xdebug and uopz overload handlers, as well as many other
extensions ...
Cheers
Joe
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Dominic Grostate <
codekest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm try
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> +1, I'm not sure it belongs into ext/reflection, though?
On 29 September 2015 at 14:54, Joe Watkins wrote:
> +1 on the concept, I tried to argue it belongs in /Zend too ... still think
Sure I'll move it to there when I finish off the
On 29 September 2015 at 14:56, Peter Petermann wrote:
> why not just do "return function() { $this->myPrivateMethod(); };"
That would not work if there were any parameters to the function. Also
all other information would need to be duplicated e.g. the return
type.
> this should be easy enough t
Hi Thomas,
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Hruska wrote:
>
> On 9/29/2015 6:52 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> We shouldn't reserve words on a whim ...
>>
>> async/await doesn't solve any problems for multithreaded programming, at
>> all ... it solves problems for asynchronous programming, a d
Thomas,
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Hruska wrote:
> On 9/29/2015 6:52 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>>
>> We shouldn't reserve words on a whim ...
>>
>> async/await doesn't solve any problems for multithreaded programming, at
>> all ... it solves problems for asynchronous programming, a dif
Hi, ive already started working with the handlers. I've set up the parser
to accept addition syntax before the ctor. The type arguments are passed
to a new opcode handler which triggers prior to NEW but after FETCH_CLASS
(if dynamic, after resolve on CONST).
This needs to override the fetching
https://github.com/orolyn/php-src/blob/generics/Zend/zend_vm_def.h
See opcode ZEND_TYPE_ARGUMENT.
I haven't built the type_argument_list yet, but once I have I will need to
pass it to the next op handler NEW. Where it will be passed to the
modified second parameter of zend_fetch_class_by_name().
> Implementing elegant, readable, and stable asynchronous code in userland PHP
> code is very possible. In fact, I’ve done exactly this with Icicle
> (https://github.com/icicleio/icicle). Icicle uses generators and promises to
> implement coroutines. When a coroutine yields a promise, the corout
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> This model totally failed for us in the past. And given that these keywords
> will be used for anything related to async APIs, let reserve them and put
> our users on the safe side already.
>
Like that time we reserved `use` way before namespa
On 29 September 2015 16:22:30 BST, Thomas Hruska
wrote:
>On 9/29/2015 6:52 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> We shouldn't reserve words on a whim ...
>>
>> async/await doesn't solve any problems for multithreaded programming,
>at
>> all ... it solves problems for asynchronous programming, a different
>>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Hello internals,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion of a proposal to allow closures to be
> created in user-land without having to use a whole lot of reflection
> code.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/closurefromcallable
>
> Thanks to Joe and Bob
I think, we don't need to reserve words, until we decide to implement this.
The context sensitive scanner introduced in 7.0 makes the problem less
serious.
$ sapi/cli/php -r 'class foo { static function use() {echo "ok\n";}}
foo::use();'
ok
Sara, related question...
Is the semantic of async/await
Hi Dmitry,
Just curious about this. :-) For dispatching next opcode, isn't a tail call
an indirect jmp instruction, just like a computed goto? So how is it
different than GOTO executor...? Debugging/compatibility? (Unless it can
work with MSVC -- oh nevermind, looks like it's only with glo
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> I think, we don't need to reserve words, until we decide to implement this.
> The context sensitive scanner introduced in 7.0 makes the problem less
> serious.
>
> $ sapi/cli/php -r 'class foo { static function use() {echo "ok\n";}}
> foo::us
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > I think, we don't need to reserve words, until we decide to implement
> this.
> > The context sensitive scanner introduced in 7.0 makes the problem less
> > serious.
> >
> > $ sapi/cl
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>
>> I do not think it is feasible to make the parser do backtracking or
>> anything of that sort. How do others feel?
>>
>>> PS: the [fn($x) => $x * 2] seems ambigous, from reader's PO
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 11:29 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Pierre Joye
> wrote:
> > > This model totally failed for us in the past. And given that these
> keywords
> > > will be used for anything relate
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 21:04 +0300, S.A.N wrote:
>
> When Node.js appear async/await, many developers and projects will
> migrate to a Node.js, if PHP is not implement async APIs.
>
> Hopefully, Dmitry Stogov and others, will make another surprise:
> PHP-Next-Async? :)
My claim is that if you're
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 11:29 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > This model totally failed for us in the past. And given that these keywords
> > will be used for anything related to async APIs, let reserve them and put
> > our users on the safe side
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Matt Wilmas
wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Just curious about this. :-) For dispatching next opcode, isn't a tail
> call an indirect jmp instruction, just like a computed goto? So how is it
> different than GOTO executor...? Debugging/compatibility? (Unless it can
>
Hey:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> Taint is blacklisting.
>>>
>> Last time I checked marking all user input as tainted and requiring
>> "untainting" before usage in sensitive functions is whitelisting and not
>> blacklisting.
>
> I would say it's neither -
36 matches
Mail list logo