On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:37 PM, wrote:
> I've updated the RFC to reflect the discussion here and on github. You may
> see it at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_str_begin_and_end_functions . You can see
> the github PR at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/2049 .
>
> The
I've updated the RFC to reflect the discussion here and on github. You
may see it at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_str_begin_and_end_functions . You can see
the github PR at https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/2049 .
The motivation for these changes was to maximize consistency between the
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:50 PM Bishop Bettini wrote:
> I feel the weight of new functions, but really getaddrinfo is meant to
> both simplify and unify how sockets are dealt with in the modern era.
> socket_getaddrinfo converts the returned linked list into an array of,
>
Hi Tom,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 8/11/16 6:58 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>>
>> Hi Leigh,
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Leigh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 at 10:15 Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This RFC is to add session_gc() function.
>
> session_gc() function is required API for periodic session GC that is
> best practice for production web sites.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/session-gc
> It
On 2016-08-12 21:40, Tom Worster wrote:
mt_srand() will work. But what would be in the array? Integers from
which the upper 32 bits, if they exist, are discarded?
mt19937ar.c contains init_by_array.
Compability with that would probably be a good goal,
unless someone can point out another
On 8/11/16 10:13 AM, Lauri Kenttä wrote:
Hello,
Any thoughts about supporting a longer seed array for mt_srand? Does
anyone really need it? Should it be in mt_srand or mt_srand_array?
See: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=32145
The second question is controversial.
People have asserted that
On 8/11/16 6:58 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi Leigh,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Leigh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 at 10:15 Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
Hi all,
This is RFC for adding session_create_id() function.
Session ID string uses special binary to
On 12/08/16 12:13, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> I may be missing something, but I thought the original code had rules
>> > for each element of the array? I would certainly expect to see the
>> > capability of setting different validating rules for each element, and
>> > the rules you are defining are
On 12/08/16 12:18, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 12 August 2016 at 13:15, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/16 12:09, Peter Lind wrote:
>>> And if all typos were switching 'e' and 'n', what a wonderful world it
>>> would be. That is not the case though - it's possible to
Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-08-12 06:22:54+03:00
commit: d4bbbc4
previous commit:052e69e
revision date: 2016-08-11 18:45:42+02:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
Hi all,
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> This RFC is to add validation functions and string validation filter.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_validate_functions_to_filter
>
> It also allows to define multiple filters for an input. i.e. You can
> apply
On 12 August 2016 at 13:15, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 12:09, Peter Lind wrote:
> > And if all typos were switching 'e' and 'n', what a wonderful world it
> > would be. That is not the case though - it's possible to accidentally
> enter
> > " and > too.
> And the
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> On 12/08/16 11:51, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>>> What makes you feel missing some or designed badly?
>>
>> I may be missing something, but
On 12/08/16 12:09, Peter Lind wrote:
> And if all typos were switching 'e' and 'n', what a wonderful world it
> would be. That is not the case though - it's possible to accidentally enter
> " and > too.
And the browser validation strips them and handles the ' when used in
text fields.
--
Lester
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 11:51, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> What makes you feel missing some or designed badly?
>
> I may be missing something, but I thought the original code had rules
> for each element of the array? I would
On 12/08/16 10:22, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Lester,
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> On 12/08/16 09:23, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>>> I don't think it's framework job to do.
>>
>> This was a little 'tongue in cheek' ... my main thought was simply that
>>
On 12 August 2016 at 13:01, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 11:01, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 11:54, Rowan Collins
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many of my systems run on secure intra-nets and
On 12 August 2016 at 12:52, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 11:23, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
> >>> On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine
On 12/08/16 11:51, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> What makes you feel missing some or designed badly?
I may be missing something, but I thought the original code had rules
for each element of the array? I would certainly expect to see the
capability of setting different validating rules for each element,
On 12/08/16 11:01, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 12 August 2016 at 11:54, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>>> Many of my systems run on secure intra-nets and much of the 'safety
>>> concerns' that have been brought up recently as
On 12/08/16 11:23, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 12 August 2016 at 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
>>> On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the ideas on this feature.
>>>
>>> A few thoughts.
>>>
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> That said, I generally think that built-in methods that accept Callables
>> are a great way to go. It encourages reuse through modular composition -
>> and could likely be a neater way around the throw
On 12/08/16 11:11, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi Lester,
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> > I'm thinking
>> > $var->setConstraint()
>> > $var->setEscape()
>> > $var->setReadOnly()
> DbC cannot cover all, but some of them can be covered during
On 12 August 2016 at 12:13, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the ideas on this feature.
> >
> > A few thoughts.
> > 1. The RFC for this isn't a change - it's
On 12/08/2016 10:52, Lester Caine wrote:
I think the idea *I* am throwing out for discussion is a switch from
global_library($var, ... ) to $var->global_library( ... ) where $var is
now always an object without having every framework creating it's own
version of the wrapper?
So kind of an
On 12/08/16 10:42, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/16 10:07, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> I'm thinking
> $var->setConstraint()
> $var->setEscape()
> $var->setReadOnly()
>
> Rather than having to build
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> I'm thinking
> $var->setConstraint()
> $var->setEscape()
> $var->setReadOnly()
DbC cannot cover all, but some of them can be covered during development.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/introduce_design_by_contract
On 12 August 2016 at 11:54, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> Many of my systems run on secure intra-nets and much of the 'safety
>> concerns' that have been brought up recently as 'essential' simply don't
>> apply.
>>
>
> There's
On 12/08/2016 10:21, Lester Caine wrote:
Many of my systems run on secure intra-nets and much of the 'safety
concerns' that have been brought up recently as 'essential' simply don't
apply.
There's always rogue employees / students / visitors with temporary
access... But yes, IF you trust your
On 12/08/16 09:54, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 12/08/2016 09:19, Lester Caine wrote:
>> I'm thinking
>> $var->setConstraint()
>> $var->setEscape()
>> $var->setReadOnly()
>>
>> Rather than having to build 'reflections' classes to pull out data that
>> a simple $var->is_valid or echo $var will output
On 12 August 2016 at 11:25, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 10:07, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> >> > I'm thinking
> >> > $var->setConstraint()
> >> > $var->setEscape()
> >> > $var->setReadOnly()
> >> >
> >> > Rather than having to build 'reflections' classes to pull out
On 12/08/16 09:43, Michał Brzuchalski wrote:
> About ReadOnly I'm currently working on `immutable` feature proposal where
> could be
> possible to mark class and properties as immutable (ReadOnly after
> initialisation)
> so it could solve problem with ReadOnly ValueObjects and immutable
>
On 11.08.2016 at 12:04, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 10/08/2016 19:23, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>
>> That might be a good idea, even if we already have the XMLReader. And
>> yes, the utf8_* functions don't really belong into ext/xml; frankly, I
>> think they don't belong anywhere – we already
On 11.08.2016 at 12:04, Rowan Collins wrote:
> On 10/08/2016 19:23, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>> That might be a good idea, even if we already have the XMLReader. And
>> yes, the utf8_* functions don't really belong into ext/xml; frankly, I
>> think they don't belong anywhere – we already have
On 12/08/16 10:07, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>> > I'm thinking
>> > $var->setConstraint()
>> > $var->setEscape()
>> > $var->setReadOnly()
>> >
>> > Rather than having to build 'reflections' classes to pull out data that
>> > a simple $var->is_valid or echo $var will output a correctly escaped
>>
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 09:23, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> I don't think it's framework job to do.
>
> This was a little 'tongue in cheek' ... my main thought was simply that
> you need a variable 'session_id' and other
On 12/08/16 09:58, Rowan Collins wrote:
>> From a practical point of view of cause, the validation of inputs may
>> well be done in the browser so that the constraints get passed TO some
>> html5 check, or javascript function. So having uploaded the form one
>> COULD simply tag a variable as
On 12/08/16 09:23, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I don't think it's framework job to do.
This was a little 'tongue in cheek' ... my main thought was simply that
you need a variable 'session_id' and other processes may benefit from a
similarly constrained variable, so an intelligent variable could be
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Michał Brzuchalski
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to submit an RFC for adding object type hint. My wiki account
> name is brzuchal.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Michał Brzuchalski
>
Hi,
I've just granted you with rfc karma for the wiki!
--
On 12.08.2016 at 10:19, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 11/08/16 23:17, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
>> You've mentioned a lot about flexibility, and that the feature could be
>> used in multiple styles, but some concrete examples of how *you* would
>> use it might help define what the feature needs to do
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Silvio Marijić
wrote:
> Hi Internals,
>
> I would like to create RFC for immutability in PHP which has gone trough
> couple of discussions, so I need RFC Karma for that. Michal Brzuchalski and
> I will be authors and we will implement it.
On 12/08/2016 08:51, Lester Caine wrote:
From a practical point of view of cause, the validation of inputs may
well be done in the browser so that the constraints get passed TO some
html5 check, or javascript function. So having uploaded the form one
COULD simply tag a variable as valid?
Just
On 12/08/2016 09:19, Lester Caine wrote:
I'm thinking
$var->setConstraint()
$var->setEscape()
$var->setReadOnly()
Rather than having to build 'reflections' classes to pull out data that
a simple $var->is_valid or echo $var will output a correctly escaped
piece of text.
Note that as discussed
2016-08-12 10:19 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine :
> On 11/08/16 23:17, Rowan Collins wrote:
> > You've mentioned a lot about flexibility, and that the feature could be
> > used in multiple styles, but some concrete examples of how *you* would
> > use it might help define what the
2016-08-12 9:51 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine :
> On 12/08/16 03:27, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> > It sounds you are looking for autoboxing (or at least something similar)
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/autoboxing
>
> That is interesting, and is probably something I would expect to come
Hi Lester,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 12/08/16 00:20, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> I've missed to handle session.hash_bits_per_character here. There are
>> people validating SID (used chars and length) via WAF or PHP code.
>>
On 11/08/16 23:17, Rowan Collins wrote:
> You've mentioned a lot about flexibility, and that the feature could be
> used in multiple styles, but some concrete examples of how *you* would
> use it might help define what the feature needs to do (and not do).
Currently my code has lots of checks for
On 12/08/16 00:20, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I've missed to handle session.hash_bits_per_character here. There are
> people validating SID (used chars and length) via WAF or PHP code.
> session.hash_bits_per_character handling is mandatory for such system.
Since 'id' is a variable, isn't this just a
On 12/08/16 03:27, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> It sounds you are looking for autoboxing (or at least something similar)
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/autoboxing
That is interesting, and is probably something I would expect to come
out in the wash with making a more intelligent variable. Except with
50 matches
Mail list logo