On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita steli...@php.net wrote:
So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to ignore
community as a
whole, stick to their own views and implement something nobody actually
wants
Few people already told - they like this.
Thanks.
Am 14.03.2015 um 00:44 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Zeev,
If I put it into vote until Sunday, we're breaking the voting process.
Which
required an apt discussion phase which definitely isn't given when we
start
Sunday.
Bob,
I do see it differently but obviously very much
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Zeev,
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be
consistent with our existing type hints for
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Niklas Keller m...@kelunik.com wrote:
2015-03-15 19:13 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
I think allowing `null` for an `int` is an error. Converting a null to
zero on a type boundary is harmful in my opinion.
I agree, `null` shouldn't be allowed for
Zeev,
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we are either violating the RFC rules by pushing the vote tomorrow or
we're
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in order to be
consistent with our existing type hints for classes, callables and arrays,
NULL is not accepted by default,
2015-03-15 19:13 GMT+01:00 Levi Morrison le...@php.net:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 15.03.2015 um 18:48 schrieb Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com:
Andrea's RFC had the following wording:
The only exception to this is the handling of NULL: in
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:07 PM
To: Niklas Keller
Cc: Levi Morrison; Bob Weinand; Anthony Ferrara; Zeev Suraski; Stelian
Mocanita; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
On Sun, Mar
On 15/03/15 18:16, Niklas Keller wrote:
I think allowing `null` for an `int` is an error. Converting a null to
zero on a type boundary is harmful in my opinion.
I agree, `null` shouldn't be allowed for `int`.
That a database result set will have perfectly valid 'null' returns for
fields is
On 14/03/15 01:02, Eli wrote:
And none answered me... is this RFC gonna be allowed to enter on voting
phase for 7.0 or not?
This drastically changes my voted on STH v5 which ends EOD today.
Actually it doesn't Guilherme. If you look at the STH v5 it states:
will close the later of March
Hi,
On 14/03/2015 00:40, Thomas Bley wrote:
I think it's time to close the scalar type hinting chapter and focus
on new challanges. We have a rfc with a majority, so I would like to
ask Zeev, Francois and Dmitry to withdraw their rfc and open the door
for finalizing php7, many people are
Not that another +1 is needed, but I'm with Andi here. I do personally
like this 3rd proposal as an option, if nothing else because it
implements the 'simpler base' at the moment, and allows us, once people
are used to this being part of the language, to continue to evolve
later. And that
+1 on this, as this is more inline with how ZPP currently works, creating
less headaches to end users.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita steli...@php.net wrote:
So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to ignore
community as a
whole, stick to their own
So to get it clear for everyone: the right way is for internals to ignore
community as a
whole, stick to their own views and implement something nobody actually
wants - just
because there is no time - on the idea that something is better than
nothing?
Without pointing any fingers it sure looks
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic
; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Chance of this RFC passing is going to be slim, as it only caters for
one
of the
three groups that Antony described...
I certainly will vote against it.
You may very well be right
guilhermebla...@gmail.com guilhermebla...@gmail.com schreef op 13 maart
2015 18:57:35 GMT+00:00:
+1 on this, as this is more inline with how ZPP currently works,
creating
less headaches to end users.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stelian Mocanita steli...@php.net
wrote:
So to get it clear
Hi,
2015-03-13 17:44 GMT-03:00 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic
PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
-Original Message-
From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:16 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Derick Rethans; Eli; guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita; PHP
Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
But seriously Zeev
On Mar 14, 2015 9:03 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Maybe I was naïve, but I thought I had a better way to make both weak
strict camps happy,
By dropping strict despite all discussions, proposing a pandara box rfc by
changing the casting rules and now suddenly proposing to go vote to
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Eberlei [mailto:kont...@beberlei.de]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:50 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Derick Rethans; Eli; Guilherme Blanco; Stelian Mocanita; PHP Internals
List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:34 PM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Eli; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Chance of this RFC passing is going to be slim
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we are either violating the RFC rules by pushing the vote tomorrow or
we're
delaying PHP7 for
So sticking to the rules is now playing law firm. The RFC Andreea
proposed has
been modified several times before going to vote. And we're not voting on
her RFC,
we're voting on Bob's that was proposed 2 days ago.
I have a feeling that this will go to vote tomorrow though.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015
-
From: stelian.mocan...@gmail.com [mailto:stelian.mocan...@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Stelian Mocanita
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals; Benjamin Eberlei
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev, allow me
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:07 AM
To: PHP Internals List
Cc: Zeev Suraski; guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Am 13.03.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Zeev Suraski z
Hi all,
On 13 March 2015 at 22:51, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2015 9:47 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll switch my vote on STH v5 to YES.
If we get Basic STH into voting phase, I change my vote to NO and vote on
YES on Basic STH.
On Mar 14, 2015 10:14 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:07 AM
To: PHP Internals List
Cc: Zeev Suraski; guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar
On Mar 13, 2015 10:36 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
So law is firm when it fits your goal but flexible when not? We have
relatively strict rules for this exact reason: nk double standard. Stop
playing with the rules and stand as someone willing to find compromises.
Totally with
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
I really want to understand if we're gonna allow this RFC voting or not.
That's important to reconsider my vote on STH
Well, if we look at it the theoretical way, then no, we won't be able
to consider this one for PHP 7:
- It got
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
I won't go into vote tomorrow.
Given that we already discussed that proposal a lot a few months ago
(Andreas v1), we can go for a discussion phase a bit shorter (like 10 days
total), but I won't put a new RFC into vote
On 3/13/15 6:26 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
And none answered me... is this RFC gonna be allowed to enter on voting
phase for 7.0 or not?
This drastically changes my voted on STH v5 which ends EOD today.
Actually it doesn't Guilherme. If you look at the STH v5 it states:
will
-Original Message-
From: stelian.mocan...@gmail.com [mailto:stelian.mocan...@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Stelian Mocanita
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals; Benjamin Eberlei
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev
And none answered me... is this RFC gonna be allowed to enter on voting
phase for 7.0 or not?
This drastically changes my voted on STH v5 which ends EOD today.
[]s,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Stelian Mocanita steli...@php.net wrote:
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's
Message-
From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:26 AM
To: Stelian Mocanita
Cc: Pierre Joye; Zeev Suraski; PHP internals; Benjamin Eberlei
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
And none answered me... is this RFC gonna
Bob Weinand wrote on 14.03.2015 00:07:
Am 13.03.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Maybe I was naïve, but I thought I had a better way to make both weak
strict camps happy, instead of just ignoring the strict camp altogether.
While there was some opposition to it - it mostly
This whole thing is depressing. I am confident Zeev means well, but as a
usually silent watcher of this list, I'll give this bystander's view of
the recent
discussion:
I don't like X, but I'll vote for it unless I can get Y approved.
I can't get Y approved, but I don't want to vote for X;
Eberlei
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev, allow me to understand how this goes. Bob's discussions on the RFC
started 2 days ago. Based on the current rules, the RFC can only go to
vote
after 2 weeks. That means in 12 days starting now.
So we are either violating
-Original Message-
From: stelian.mocan...@gmail.com [mailto:stelian.mocan...@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Stelian Mocanita
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:30 AM
To: guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Cc: Pierre Joye; Zeev Suraski; PHP internals; Benjamin Eberlei
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC
On Mar 14, 2015 9:47 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll switch my vote on STH v5 to YES.
If we get Basic STH into voting phase, I change my vote to NO and vote on
YES on Basic STH.
I say it again: it should not be accepted. Or we can just scratch our rules
and
Am 13.03.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
Maybe I was naïve, but I thought I had a better way to make both weak
strict camps happy, instead of just ignoring the strict camp altogether.
While there was some opposition to it - it mostly came from the main
proponents of the
Am 14.03.2015 um 00:14 schrieb Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:07 AM
To: PHP Internals List
Cc: Zeev Suraski; guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Zeev,
If I put it into vote until Sunday, we're breaking the voting process.
Which
required an apt discussion phase which definitely isn't given when we
start
Sunday.
Bob,
I do see it differently but obviously very much respect your position.
Why do I see it differently? The mandatory two
Hi all,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus,
On 11.03.15 22:28, Bob Weinand wrote:
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar
types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/basic_scalar_types
2015-03-12 11:23 GMT+02:00 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com:
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:46 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Correct. It's just
-Original Message-
From: Bob Weinand [mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:46 AM
To: Pierre Joye
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
Correct. It's just for the case where the other two fail.
We still can add strict mode
So really, the options we have are:
1. Put this one for a vote before the end of tomorrow. Here too, on a
personal level, if I see that this proposal isn't gaining enough votes,
I'd
support the dual mode one.
2. Don't put it up for a vote, and then we may or may not have
something
for
On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar
types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar
types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals fail:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/basic_scalar_types
It shouldn't prevent any future
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
Am 11.03.2015 um 22:28 schrieb Bob Weinand:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar
types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
On Mar 12, 2015 8:30 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
Am 11.03.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com:
It shouldn't prevent any future improvements and still give use all the
advantages of scalar types.
Besides what I think of proposing yet another RFC, -1 because it is
basically what the initial idea from the opponents of
It shouldn't prevent any future improvements and still give use all the
advantages of scalar types.
Besides what I think of proposing yet another RFC, -1 because it is
basically what the initial idea from the opponents of optional strict mode
wanted before they go with the latest one. It
On 11 March 2015 at 14:28, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar
types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Am 11.03.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Pavel Kouřil pajou...@gmail.com:
It shouldn't prevent any future improvements and still give use all the
advantages of scalar types.
Besides what I think of proposing yet another RFC, -1
Dmitry,
I tend to disagree with many people wanting this over nothing. It's a big
enough topic,
that raised waives in the community, to be treated properly and not just
throw it in before
feature freeze, so I agree with Nikita on this one.
My view on it is that if both RFC's fail, the feature
Am 11.03.2015 um 23:23 schrieb Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com:
On Mar 12, 2015 8:30 AM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com
mailto:bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals
fail:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about
scalar types. So, they both still possibly may fail.
Thus,
64 matches
Mail list logo
