On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.ptwrote:
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context RFC:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.ptwrote:
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**incompat_ctx#votehttps://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx#vote
--
Gustavo Lopes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
The fact that this use of PHP is documented in the manual as a feature
www.php.net/manual/en/**language.oop5.basic.phphttp://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.basic.php
And mentions that it will elicit a E_STRICT error - does not indicate that
it would be DEPRECATED, I'm assuming that has
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx#vote
FINALLY realised why this was an itch I had to scratch.
Why just pick on one aspect of E_STRICT ? Surely the end point should be
removing all of the
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/**incompat_ctx#votehttps://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx#vote
FINALLY realised why this was an
Rebuttal inline... - and better solution at end...
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 01:46 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I've used this in other places, it's basically lightweight traits, and
has always been perfectly valid code. There does not seem to be a clear
justification for deprecating it
Hi!
I did a testable version in javascript the other day. - it's similar to
this..
Javascript is not really an OO language. It has objects, but it doesn't
really follow or enforce any of OO paradigms. It's prototype-based, so
things work differently there.
An almost secret vote, that as I
Top posting as the discussion was going a bit off topic. (Yes there was
a vote, but the rfc could do with some refinements.)
This is an illustration of the proposed change to the RFC, and the
absurdity of how trait's allow incompatible scopes, and give no similar
warning
Example1 -
If addPreserveText() uses anything from Footer, it should not be called
from TextRun, but if it does not, it should be in Section.
No, if it was in Section, all the child classes would have to override
it and throw errors. That results in quite a bit of pointless
boilerplate code to solve a
On Monday 28 January 2013 21:46:27 Stas Malyshev wrote:
I understand that there's a tendency to use OO as
a neat way to namespace global functions and autoload them, but that's
not how it is supposed to work.
I've seen that sentiment against using static methods several times now,
and it
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:17:05 +0100, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt
wrote:
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context
RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx#vote
The RFC has been accepted unanimously. I'll implement it shortly. The
change is trivial
Holy crap, how did you sneak this through..
my apologies for deleting the = vote, but i could not work out how to revert it.
But this is a core php feature, for anyone who does not use traits We use
this quite a bit, it may not be for purists, but it has worked perfectly for
years. This
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:17:21 +0100, Alan Knowles a...@roojs.com wrote:
my apologies for deleting the = vote, but i could not work out how to
revert it.
No problem, the result is still available at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx?rev=1359379541
I don't know want to know what you
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Alan Knowles a...@roojs.com wrote:
Holy crap, how did you sneak this through..
what do you mean by sneak? it was proposed and announced in the usual
channels.
my apologies for deleting the = vote, but i could not work out how to
revert it.
no problem,
I was trying to vote against, for what it's worth.
It's a major bc break with no obvious value, and what appears to be 7 days
given to vote when every one is busy discussing a new property syntax.
Traits is cute, but this was a amazing feature of the PHP language, not
obvious, but it's pretty
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Alan Knowles a...@roojs.com wrote:
I was trying to vote against, for what it's worth.
trying to re-open the vote and voting after Gustavo announced that the
voting was closed?
that's sounds a little bit weird.
It's a major bc break with no obvious value,
On 28 January 2013 14:49, Alan Knowles a...@roojs.com wrote:
I was trying to vote against, for what it's worth.
It's a major bc break with no obvious value, and what appears to be 7 days
given to vote when every one is busy discussing a new property syntax.
See other thread by Zeev :)
On
On 30 July 2012 18:31, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx
An RFC for deprecating and removing $this from incompatible context.
Comments are welcome.
Gustavo, my apologies, the ORIGINAL mail did say a little more about it.
-Original Message-
From: Alan Knowles [mailto:a...@roojs.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:49 PM
To: Gustavo Lopes; PHP Internals; Alan Knowles
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from incompatible
context
I was trying to vote against, for what it's worth
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
But this is a core php feature, for anyone who does not use traits We
use this quite a bit, it may not be for purists, but it has worked
perfectly for years. This is getting a bit silly, change for change sake
I've found this to be a huge wtf when you bump into,
Ok, just checked the mailing list (and sorry for top-posting)
July 31st. RFC announced
Jul 31st - 6 or 7 mails at least one very negative, a couple for it.
August 1,3,5,6 - 5 or 6 emails getting a bit off-topic.
Jan 21st - call to vote (single email - no-one replied on list)... - got
15 +1
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break? The RFC suggested that
the BC break would be minimal and that the likelihood a lot of people used
it is very low. If you think
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:46 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Alan Knowles; Gustavo Lopes; PHP Internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Deprecate and remove calls from
incompatible
context
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jan 28
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
But this is a core php feature, for anyone who does not use traits We
use this quite a bit, it may not be for purists, but it has worked
perfectly for years. This is getting a bit silly, change
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
What does it mean then? That implementing this RFC waits for 6.0 or that
it was invalid in the first place?
Both, if the plan is to get that into 5.x.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi Zeev,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break? The RFC suggested
that
the BC break would be minimal and
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
What does it mean then? That implementing this RFC waits for 6.0 or that
it was invalid in the first place?
Both, if the plan is to get that into 5.x.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:45:43 +0100, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break? The RFC suggested
that the BC break would be minimal and that
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:45:43 +0100, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
Can you explain why you think it's a
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:45:43 +0100, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
Please Lester, could you stop pretending that E_STRICT errors will crash your
application and kill all the kittens?
There are a bunch of people (myself included) who tries to write E_STRICT free
code so that our application is fast and bugfree?
Yes, there are people who
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
Please Lester, could you stop pretending that E_STRICT errors will crash
your
application and kill all the kittens?
There are a bunch of people (myself included) who tries to write E_STRICT
free
Lester,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I'm not going to go back and list the problems. E_STRICT errors DO cause
problems running legacy code. I've had plenty of white screens until
E_STRICT was switched back off in PHP5.4! Things that are just warnings
Hi!
If we introduced BC breaks other than those, then we'd to review them
and see why they have been introduced. But one thing is clear: we do
not allow BC breaks between 5.x and 5.x+1.
We need a better definition of BC break then. Is deprecating an existing
feature BC break? Is adding a
On Jan 28, 2013 8:41 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
If we introduced BC breaks other than those, then we'd to review them
and see why they have been introduced. But one thing is clear: we do
not allow BC breaks between 5.x and 5.x+1.
We need a better definition of
On Monday, January 28, 2013 11:30 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Alan,
Can you explain why you think it's a major BC break? The RFC suggested that
the BC break would be minimal and that the likelihood a lot of people used
it is very low. If you think differently and share it it might put it in a
Hi!
I've used this in other places, it's basically lightweight traits, and
has always been perfectly valid code. There does not seem to be a clear
justification for deprecating it other than, It's not the way 'some'
people like code to work...
Well, I think the reason is that this code is
I've opened the vote for the remove calls from incompatible context RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/incompat_ctx#vote
--
Gustavo Lopes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
38 matches
Mail list logo
