On 9/18/2023 3:36 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
I can see where you're going with this, but as others have noted I don't think
it's really the right way to go about it.
If the property hooks RFC passes (we're stalled a bit trying to put together
benchmarks, sorry), that will solve this use case
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:18 PM Shailesh Humbad
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm gauging interest on a proposed change to the short echo tag "
> CURRENTLY:
> The short echo tag "" is equivalent to "",
> which allows for beautiful MVC views like this:
>
>
> title ?>
> body ?>
>
>
> INSTEAD:
> Change
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, at 6:18 PM, Shailesh Humbad wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm gauging interest on a proposed change to the short echo tag "
> CURRENTLY:
> The short echo tag "" is equivalent to "",
> which allows for beautiful MVC views like this:
>
>
> title ?>
> body ?>
>
>
> INSTEAD:
> Change
I think it's a non-starter because it would change how the existing
code is interpreted.
E.g. currently
```
```
outputs `rand`, but with your proposal it would invoke `rand()` and
output its result.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:19 PM Shailesh Humbad
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm gauging interest on
I think a big part of your problem is misusing PHP constructs. Why are
you adding a function as a property? Of course the engine sees it as a
method call, you can't even use a callable as the typehint for a
property. If the 'body' function is separate from each instance, why not
make it a
On 9/18/2023 2:40 PM, Dusk wrote:
Surely this can already be accomplished unambiguously using syntax
like `` or `title)() ?>` ?
In any case, this seems like a non-starter, as it would substantially change
the behavior of some existing code, e.g. when echoing objects which implement
both
On Sep 18, 2023, at 11:18, Shailesh Humbad wrote:
> INSTEAD:
> Change the short echo tag "" to be equivalent to " is_callable($x) ? $x() : echo $x; ?>", which allows view model properties to
> be defined as closures.
Surely this can already be accomplished unambiguously using syntax like `` or
Hello,
I'm gauging interest on a proposed change to the short echo tag "The short echo tag "" is equivalent to "",
which allows for beautiful MVC views like this:
title ?>
body ?>
INSTEAD:
Change the short echo tag "" to be equivalent to "is_callable($x) ? $x() : echo $x; ?>", which allows
Hi Stephen
On 18/09/2023 08:46, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
>
>> On 17 Sep 2023, at 18:28, Niels Dossche wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexandru
>>
>> On 9/17/23 11:59, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 02:17 Niels Dossche wrote:
>>>
We'll add a common abstract base class
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 12:46 PM Hans Henrik Bergan
wrote:
> I think the submodule approach is fine, but maybe it should be moved from
> Dmitry's gh to php-src gh, or maybe it's own dedicated group, to reduce the
> bus factor (how much work needs to be done if Dmitry is hit by a bus~)
>
``git
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 1:22 AM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 9/15/23 17:50, Ben Ramsey wrote:
> > Additionally, despite the use of a Git submodule complicating things for
> > "everyone else," it provides a clear dependency and development
> > boundary, avoiding situations where the php-src
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:01 AM Pierre Joye wrote:
> Great work! This is a massive jump for PHP. Thank you :)
>
> I don't have much concerns about the license etc as the ZE is already
> under Zend the ZE license (never updated since Perforce acquired them,
> tho'):
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2023, at 18:28, Niels Dossche wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandru
>
> On 9/17/23 11:59, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 02:17 Niels Dossche wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We'll add a common abstract base class DOM\Document (name taken from the
>>> DOM spec & Javascript world).
>>>
Hi Ben,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 6:50 PM Ben Ramsey wrote:
> On 9/15/23 09:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > I understand that working on an RFC for such a complex issue is going to
> > take time, but that also gives to opportunity to pair with somebody,
> > who, while writing it, will also learn
Hi Derick,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 5:35 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
> I think this is great work. It looks like the new JIT-IR approach is
> more suitable. I have however concerns with a few things here.
>
> This is a lot of new code, that very few other people understand in
> great detail.
>
> I
15 matches
Mail list logo
