On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 00:38, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for such a detailed response. Ok, I understand then. Then
>> next logical step here is - I would maybe want to use these awesome
>> short tags also then.
>
>
> No disrespect
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Thank you for such a detailed response. Ok, I understand then. Then
> next logical step here is - I would maybe want to use these awesome
> short tags also then.
No disrespect Peter, but I really don't think you understand (my position).
I d
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 21:25, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Considering that you're in favor of keeping the short opening tag in
>>
>> PHP "forever" because you haven't added any kind of other solution
>> either by now neither you see an issue
> PHP is, after all, built almost entirely on extensions. Those extensions can
> either be there, or not, enabled in the INI, or not. Do we consider code
> written containing functions from mysqli, gd or zip (just to name a few) to
> be non-portable because we can omit them from the INI (or just
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:14 PM Nicolas Grekas
wrote:
> Le mar. 6 août 2019 à 13:34, G. P. B. a écrit :
>
> > The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> > It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
> >
> > A counter argument to this RFC is available at
On 07/08/2019 20:45, Sergey Panteleev wrote:
Perhaps I missed and someone already suggested,
but didn't consider a compromise option:
just change the default value short_open_tag=false,
and DON'T removes the option from php.ini?
Without the other changes, this would lead to potentially dangerou
Hi there!
Perhaps I missed and someone already suggested,
but didn't consider a compromise option:
just change the default value short_open_tag=false,
and DON'T removes the option from php.ini?
If someone uses short tags - ok, they will change
the default value to true and everything will be as b
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Considering that you're in favor of keeping the short opening tag in
>
PHP "forever" because you haven't added any kind of other solution
> either by now neither you see an issue with this... I think the worst
> situation for language is that th
On 07/08/2019 18:44, Peter Kokot wrote:
I think the worst
situation for language is that there is an option to write non
portable code with this unfortunate short tag. It won't work
everywhere. So, this is already a reason for thinking forward (at
least from the progress and consistency point of
Hello,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:03, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14,
Le mar. 6 août 2019 à 13:34, G. P. B. a écrit :
> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2019-08-20.
>
> A counter argument to this RFC is available at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/counterargument/deprecate_php_short_tag
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:00 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:5
Hello.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 18:56, Chase Peeler wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:45 PM Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarif
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 16:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
>> > certain people from the group internals can veto partic
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:09, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:03, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>>
>>> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
>>> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
> >
> > Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
> > certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC.
>
> Please could you point to where this alleged rule
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 09:03, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
>> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
>> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified" is
>> explicitly a thing that will not be allowed in i
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:56, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> I think when we adopt a Code of Conduct one of the things we need to
> make explicit is that "claiming authority that is not codified" is
> explicitly a thing that will not be allowed in internals discussions
> as it seems to keep happening and re
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:45, Peter Kokot wrote:
>
> Yes, last time I was asking this, there was a clarification that
> certain people from the group internals can veto particular RFC.
Please could you point to where this alleged rule has ever been
written down or agreed to?
Although certain peop
Hi, i guess need add warning in log if file with extension ".php" not contains
"
On 07/08/2019 09:11, Nikita Popov wrote:
To clarify: What I had in mind is that use of in PHP code requires an explicit short_tags=Off right now, so the
situation there shouldn't change, unless I'm missing something.
Since it would behave differently, it wouldn't make sense to say that it
de
On 7 Aug 2019, at 12:39, Christoph M. Becker
mailto:cmbecke...@gmx.de>> wrote:
As I understand it, this RFC has been put to vote again, because the first
version had some problematic details, and by courtesy to cater to the clamor
raised after
the voting had finished.
That is correct. There
On 07.08.2019 at 10:44, Peter Kokot wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:28, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>>
>>> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
>>> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different de
Hello,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 09:28, Andrey Andreev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
> >
> > This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> > This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> > approach." meani
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:55 PM Claude Pache wrote:
>
>
> > Le 6 août 2019 à 20:46, Nikita Popov a écrit :
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:34 PM G. P. B.
> wrote:
> >
> >> The voting for the "Deprecate short open tags, again" [1] RFC has begun.
> >> It is expected to last two (2) weeks until 2
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:20 PM G. P. B. wrote:
>
> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : "
> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation
> approach." meaning that the previous one is void.
> I don't know why this is ambiguous and
27 matches
Mail list logo
