Hi internals,
Voting has started on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deque_straw_poll , to gather
feedback on the following options:
1. `\Deque`, the name currently used in the RFC/implementation.
See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deque#global_namespace
This was my preference because it was short,
Le 12/01/2022 à 11:28, Brett McBride a écrit :
Hello,
I'm pretty stuck, trying to make an existing PHP extension
(google/protobuf) compatible with php 8.1 [1] whilst retaining
backwards-compatibility (ideally back to 7.0, but that might be
negotiable). I'm not a C programmer, and definitely not
Hello,
I'm pretty stuck, trying to make an existing PHP extension
(google/protobuf) compatible with php 8.1 [1] whilst retaining
backwards-compatibility (ideally back to 7.0, but that might be
negotiable). I'm not a C programmer, and definitely not a PHP extension
developer.
Some methods in the
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 9:17 AM Tim Düsterhus, WoltLab GmbH <
duester...@woltlab.com> wrote:
> Hi Lynn
>
> On 1/11/22 11:23 AM, Lynn wrote:
> > One possible addition; would it be possible to analyze the masked values
> > and mask any 100% matches elsewhere?
>
> No, this is not in scope for this
Hi Lynn
On 1/11/22 11:23 AM, Lynn wrote:
One possible addition; would it be possible to analyze the masked values
and mask any 100% matches elsewhere?
No, this is not in scope for this RFC, as it would require accurate
tracking of variable contents across reassignments and possibly function
