Re: [PHP-DEV] Features related to Object Initializers

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Larry Garfield wrote: > > I think everyone's in agreement about: > > 1) Making objects easier to work with. > 2) Devs should use objects more. I am glad we are reaching some common ground. :-) > (Side note: I have an article submitted to php[architect] entitled

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Hi! > For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must > be established somewhere. And that's what I am concerned about. Once we start assuming the RFC process is not for solving technical questions for everything, we get into this kind of rule lawyering and nitpicking

Re: [PHP-DEV] Features related to Object Initializers

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > I had to snip context and split in two to get under the 30k char limit. > > > On Sep 16, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Rowan Tommins > > wrote: > > > > Points 1 and 3 are solved by anonymous classes, which we already

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Michał Brzuchalski wrote: > Hi Rowan, > > pon., 16 wrz 2019 o 16:57 Rowan Tommins > napisał(a): > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> That would require multiple new features, though, so initializers might > >>> be > >>> more achievable in the short term, and perhaps

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Tomas Kuliavas > wrote: > > If you claim that language is good or popular while being slow, you are > not telling where this language is used. To be clear, I was only quoting the top level points for each of those articles, for full transparency. And that point

Re: [PHP-DEV] Features related to Object Initializers

2 of 2 > On Sep 16, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Rowan Tommins wrote: > > I don't particularly see them as a "group". If I write foo($a, 42), I don't > think of $a and 42 being bound together in any way; each is passed as a > value to one variable in the function. So that's my answer to "why not"; >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Evolving PHP

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:11 PM Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Lots of drama on internals lately. Not that different from 15-20 years ago. > A couple of things to keep in mind for everyone. > > It is not that hard to write a tool that perfectly fits your own needs and > people who are very similar to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Features related to Object Initializers

I had to snip context and split in two to get under the 30k char limit. > On Sep 16, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Rowan Tommins > wrote: > > Points 1 and 3 are solved by anonymous classes, which we already have. > Point 2 is a bit vague; is your point essentially "if we

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

The lack of concurrent PHP features in 2019 is, in my opinion, sufficient reason not to use it for CLI projects. Some companies do not welcome installing extensions like Swoole, the language should have native concurrent features. Daniel El dom., 15 sept. 2019 a las 0:33, Mike Schinkel ()

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

2019.09.15 06:32 Mike Schinkel rašė: > https://medium.com/@trungluongquang/why-python-is-popular-despite-being-super-slow-83a8320412a9 > 1. End-users just don’t care (about slower performance) Which means that your code is running data processing and not interactive user facing frontend. Put 10

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

Hi Rowan, pon., 16 wrz 2019 o 16:57 Rowan Tommins napisał(a): > > >> >>> >>> That would require multiple new features, though, so initializers might >>> be >>> more achievable in the short term, and perhaps there is room for both, >>> particularly if support for getters and setters improves.

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:12 AM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:47 PM Chase Peeler > wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Olumide Samson >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I also don't agree with the index and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:37, Michał Brzuchalski wrote: > > >> The problem with that is that you need an extra static method to make use >> of it, and you still need to get the arguments into that method. It might >> be useful occasionally, but it still doesn't help constructors which are >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

Hi Rowan, pon., 16 wrz 2019 o 15:47 Rowan Tommins napisał(a): > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:29, Michał Brzuchalski < > michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Please keep in mind that initializing properties through object > initializer > > applies to visible properties and is possible to

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:47 PM Chase Peeler wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Olumide Samson > > wrote: > > > > > I also don't agree with the index and all its statistics > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'all its

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 08:29, Michał Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please keep in mind that initializing properties through object initializer > applies to visible properties and is possible to assign > protected or private properties from the class scope as well. > The

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP's declining(?) popularity

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Olumide Samson > wrote: > > > I also don't agree with the index and all its statistics > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'all its statistics'. Mostly everything on > the methodology page is fluff, which

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:01 AM Vesselin Kenashkov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > > > > The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these > > discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really > > not willing to participate in any

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > > We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, > but a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any > change in governance. > I think it can actually be taken into account. As I wrote - we

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pierre Joye wrote: > > > The only thing I dislike a lot is the general tone of these > discussions, that should be different, that makes me sad and really > not willing to participate in any way. > > Hi everyone, I just want to second that feeling of Pierre. Im a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:18 PM Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > We heard you repeating the RFC process isn't applicable very often now, but > a productive way forward needs to take it into account to make any change > in governance. > > For many of the current contributors RFC+Voting process is the

[PHP-DEV] Re: Features related to Object Initializers

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 04:13, Mike Schinkel wrote: > > Obviously that can be done. However, in practice I often see arrays used > instead of objects because it is so much easier. I doubt that this > enhancement will remove the other reasons developers might continue to use > arrays instead: > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:14 AM Zeev Suraski wrote: > This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if > any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his > position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current > form has to say. >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

For there to be a veto, of the kind that anyone can actually use, it must be established somewhere. What you are talking about simply does not exist, you can assert all you like that "the group" can do whatever they like, but they have no means to do so that any other contributor needs to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Hi Joe, On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:25 PM Joe Watkins wrote: > > Pierre, > > I repeat, there are no vetos, for anyone. Sorry to factually disagree here. Whether I or you like it is not relevant here. By the way, can we focus on more important points, I do think that will bring the whole thing a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Pierre, I repeat, there are no vetos, for anyone. Cheers Joe On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:04, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Pierre Joye wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote: > > > > > > Hi Pierre, > > > > > > > The RFC process defines a veto

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

This note isn't really for Joe, who will likely would not pay too much if any attention to whatever I or whomever else who disagrees with his position on the universal applicability of the Voting RFC in its current form has to say. This is for the many other folks following this and other threads.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing PECL signup flow.

On 16.09.2019 at 10:30, Arnold Daniels wrote: > As an alternative, maybe we can create a new channel which works more like > [packagist.org](https://packagist.org/). For now, it could still work with > the `pecl` cli. > > For community acceptance, it would be good if the channel was configured

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Pierre Joye wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote: > > > > Hi Pierre, > > > > > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed. > > > > Can you show me where that is defined please ? > > In the current version, there is no

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joe Watkins wrote: > > Hi Pierre, > > > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed. > > Can you show me where that is defined please ? In the current version, there is no mention of veto, which surprises me. It was definitively something that

Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:39 AM Mike Schinkel wrote: > Benjamin, > > Thank you for your comments. > > One thing I want to clarify though; your reply seems to imply that I asked > this questions solely because of the object initializer RFC. That is not > the case. I had these exact same

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Hi Pierre, > The RFC process defines a veto and could be applied when needed. Can you show me where that is defined please ? Cheers Joe On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 10:36, Peter Bowyer wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 14:16, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > How can an undefined group have copyright

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 14:16, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > How can an undefined group have copyright vested in it? > > It's very much well-defined. And certainly not by Wikipedia, but in the > PHP source code and the php.net website itself. Right at the top of the > Credit page: >

Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Arnold Daniels > wrote: > > [Arnold Daniels - Chat @ > Spike](https://www.spikenow.com/?ref=spike-organic-signature&_ts=5wb22) > [5wb22] > > On September 16, 2019 at 7:40 GMT, Mike Schinkel wrote: > >>> >>> 1. Alternatives to the RFC? >>> 2.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing PECL signup flow.

As an alternative, maybe we can create a new channel which works more like [packagist.org](https://packagist.org/). For now, it could still work with the `pecl` cli. For community acceptance, it would be good if the channel was configured by default, similar to pecl.php.net. Where packagist

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Good afternoon Joe, On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:48 PM Joe Watkins wrote: > There is confusion among the community, and contained in the documented > history of PHP on the wider internet. > > The Wikipedia states that PHP is developed by the PHP Group, in saying this > it is (must be) referring

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Hi! > Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one > we have. So? There was time where we had none. Processes are not some precious jewels that we occasionally happen to find by chance but can't have any more. We can create them. > To clarify, I wasn't trying to

Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?

[Arnold Daniels - Chat @ Spike](https://www.spikenow.com/?ref=spike-organic-signature&_ts=5wb22) [5wb22] On September 16, 2019 at 7:40 GMT, Mike Schinkel wrote: > > > > 1. Alternatives to the RFC? > > 2. Enhancements to the RFC? > > 3. Modifications to the RFC? > > 4. Other features

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Stas, > Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop saying that. Because it's a waste of everyone's time. The RFC process is the only one we have. > RFC process was not created to be sole governing body for PHP project and something that makes every vote mandatory for

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] DOM Living Standard API

Hi Benjamin, I like the proposal. On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 01:40, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > I am asking about feedback especially on the section "Implementation > Details", that explains some key differences to "PHPify" the DOM Living > Standard API to PHP and ext/dom. Do you have any comments

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Hi! > I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one > thing or another, it's patently false. Not can't, shouldn't be. And I don't see any reason why we should stop saying that. > To say it's not suitable for these things is a total nonsense, we already > use it for

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Object Initializer

Features like `func_get_args(ARGS_OBJECT)` and `hoist` aren't really needed. You can use `get_defined_vars()` instead. Many of my classes have constructors like; public function __construct(int $foo, string $bar, bool $flag = false) { set_object_vars($this, get_defined_vars()); } FYI

Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?

Benjamin, Thank you for your comments. One thing I want to clarify though; your reply seems to imply that I asked this questions solely because of the object initializer RFC.That is not the case.I had these exact same questions before the object initializer RFC was

Re: [PHP-DEV] Defining the PHP Group

Morning internals, I've got some good feedback here, my suggested words were indeed rather loose. I'd like it if we could stop saying the RFC process can't be used for one thing or another, it's patently false. The RFC process introduced itself, amends itself, is used for deprecation, addition,

[PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Object Initializer

Hi all, czw., 12 wrz 2019 o 16:00 Michał Brzuchalski napisał(a): > Hi internals, > > I'd like to open discussion about RFC: Object Initializer. > > This proposal reduces boilerplate of object instantiation and properties > initialization in case of classes without required constructor arguments

[PHP-DEV] Re: Features related to Object Initializers

On 16 September 2019 04:13:24 BST, Mike Schinkel wrote: > >> On Sep 14, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Rowan Tommins >wrote: >> I think that's only true because you've actually proposed a number of >related but different features. > > >See my other email to the list asking about what is in-bounds and what

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Object Initializer

Hi Paul, niedz., 15 wrz 2019 o 15:48 Paul M. Jones napisał(a): > > > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 09:00, Michał Brzuchalski < > michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi internals, > > > > I'd like to open discussion about RFC: Object Initializer. > > > > This proposal reduces boilerplate of

Re: [PHP-DEV] The RFC discussion process?

Hello Mike, On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:50 AM Mike Schinkel wrote: > Hi all, > > I am relatively new to discussions on the list, and so I have tried to > understand the ethos of the community to stay within bounds that the > community generally considers acceptable. > > However I am realizing