Hey folks.
Edit.php.net is down. And from the tweet I got not only for some hours
(https://twitter.com/arueckauer/status/1288728325331079168)
Can either anyone with access to the system (pb11.php.net) have a look
or grant me access so that I can have a look? According to
https://wiki.php.net/syst
Hi,
Was created a new edit box (http://edit-new.php.net/,
https://github.com/php/systems/commit/c79853fe86f9e844a39bd36b7918298a4b924c5d),
but login throws an error.
It fixed easy, but I have no karma to merge this fix
(https://github.com/php/web-doc-editor/pull/18)
As a temporary solution yo
Such a nice syntax. Even better than @@ and @. I wish this could get more
attention/traction.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 19:46 David Rodrigues wrote:
> Oh, you are right! "yield from" is not common for me currently, so I really
> skipped it.
>
> In this case, is there some problem to apply it to Attr
Hi Nikita,
This is unfortunately a breaking change. In my config.m4 file for Xdebug
I have:
AC_MSG_CHECKING([Check for supported PHP versions])
PHP_XDEBUG_FOUND_VERSION=`${PHP_CONFIG} --version`
PHP_XDEBUG_FOUND_VERNUM=`echo "${PHP_XDEBUG_FOUND_VERSION}" | $AWK 'BEGIN {
FS = "."; } { prin
Thanks, Peter!
PR was merged.
Now, should we use https://edit-new.php.net/ or edit php.net zone like that
(https://github.com/saundefined/systems/commit/955c6145933b59a67237c5257766aa1ff5ee225c)?
—
wbr
Sergey Panteleev
On 30 Jul 2020, 11:44 +0300, Сергей Пантелеев , wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Was created
I think it has become clear that we need to revisit this syntax question
again, including the elephpant in the room of delaying this feature to 8.1.
The reason is not only Joe's desire to revote on #[], but also that there
are now more syntax proposals such as @[] by Derick or @@ in comments by
Ty
Maybe add it to that thread??
https://externals.io/message/111218
Cheers,
Josh
> On Jul 30, 2020, at 4:50 AM, Deleu wrote:
>
> Such a nice syntax. Even better than @@ and @. I wish this could get more
> attention/traction.
>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 19:46 David Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>> Oh, y
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:50 AM Benjamin Eberlei
wrote:
> I think it has become clear that we need to revisit this syntax question
> again, including the elephpant in the room of delaying this feature to 8.1.
>
> The reason is not only Joe's desire to revote on #[],
>
>
No, I *do not* want to re
I would like to suggests the syntax "using attribute(Attribute, ...)". It
is more clear and should not create BC.
Em qui, 30 de jul de 2020 10:28, Joe Ferguson escreveu:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:50 AM Benjamin Eberlei
> wrote:
>
> > I think it has become clear that we need to revisit this sy
Hi Benjamin,
> The reason is not only Joe's desire to revote on #[], but also that there
> are now more syntax proposals such as @[] by Derick or @@ in comments by
> Tyson (though no patch exists for it yet). At this point a lot of syntaxes
> are potentially viable (except single @, please don't s
Hi David,
> I would like to suggests the syntax "using attribute(Attribute, ...)". It
> is more clear and should not create BC.
I'd agree that it's implementable and works with the tokenizer.
My main objection is the verbosity, which is the reason I assume many other
languages have fairly short
I think that verbosity is not a problem if compared to "strange mixed
symbols", mainly to new users. Google it is a bit hard "what means double
at". And "using attribute" is very clear.
Anyway, I think that is valid we use it for now until we have a good symbol
arrangement, and on future we could
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 14:28, Joe Ferguson wrote:
> ... I'm still here wanting us to talk about the
> impact of @@ on static analysis tools. Apparently, internals doesn't care
> about these projects.
>
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of this thread at all. I've seen
three main types o
Question: The key factor of not using @ is due to conflict of
suppression symbol.
While we are in a major (where BC breaks are not encourage, but
tolerable), have we considered the possibility of BC breaking
suppression symbol (@ would become @@) and using @ for Attributes?
I bet a search/replace
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:19 PM guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question: The key factor of not using @ is due to conflict of
> suppression symbol.
> While we are in a major (where BC breaks are not encourage, but
> tolerable), have we considered the possibility of
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 17:18, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I bet a search/replace wouldn't be that hard to be achieved
>
Find-and-replace always sounds like a good idea, until you realise that
people run *a lot* of third-party code. I would not enjoy going th
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:30 PM Rowan Tommins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 17:18, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I bet a search/replace wouldn't be that hard to be achieved
> >
>
>
> Find-and-replace always sounds like a good idea, until you realise
Hi Joe Ferguson,
> Now that it seems the technical concerns around @@ have been resolved by
> another pending, passing, RFC, I'm still here wanting us to talk about the
> impact of @@ on static analysis tools. Apparently, internals doesn't care
> about these projects. I care and I'm trying to help
18 matches
Mail list logo
