On 4/7/2016 8:43 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 4/7/2016 8:05 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>> Meanwhile, it might be worth checking the list archives for previous
>> discussions of package visibility; I know it has come up a couple of
>> times recently, in various forms, so it would be good not to
On 4/7/2016 8:43 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> In other words: same as Java without any modifier. I only changed the
> proposal because var is to be kept and the current semantic of it
> (implicit public) but not being truly equal motivated me to change the
> proposal and to give it a new meaning.
>
On 4/7/2016 8:32 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was working on a private-class support for PHP an year ago, until I hit a
> problem I couldn't fix myself.
>
Hi, I know and I commented on the PR on GitHub some time ago. I kept the
semantics of private classes exactly as you have
On 4/7/2016 8:05 PM, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Fleshgrinder wrote on 07/04/2016 18:35:
>> I would like to change above definition for properties since the*var*
>> deprecation was voted negative:
>>
>> # Properties
>> private := limited to the current class
>> protected := limited to the current and
Hi,
I was working on a private-class support for PHP an year ago, until I hit a
problem I couldn't fix myself.
Now I have some more expertise of what I could do to resolve it, but I
still didn't start on rebase/update of patch yet.
However, I'd like to describe my line of thinking here, so people
Fleshgrinder wrote on 07/04/2016 18:35:
I would like to change above definition for properties since the*var*
deprecation was voted negative:
# Properties
private := limited to the current class
protected := limited to the current and child classes
var := limited to the current assembly
On 3/19/2016 12:51 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> I just thought about this some more and this is actually not true.
>
> namespace Fleshgrinder\Examples\PhpInternals;
>
> final class A {
> int $x;
> var $y;
> $z;
>
> function getX() {
> return
On 3/19/2016 12:51 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> Moving this to a new thread in order to not spam the other.
>
> On 3/19/2016 11:48 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
>> On 3/19/2016 11:38 AM, Björn Larsson wrote:
>>> Den 2016-03-18 kl. 21:12, skrev Fleshgrinder:
No worries you are not, not at all. I just
Den 2016-03-19 kl. 13:29, skrev Fleshgrinder:
On 3/19/2016 1:19 PM, Björn Larsson wrote:
Hi,
There is "references" in the message header so it ends up in the
same thread in Thunderbird newsreader but with a new headline.
In case you want to repost...
I think it's a good starting point though,
Moving this to a new thread in order to not spam the other.
On 3/19/2016 11:48 AM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 3/19/2016 11:38 AM, Björn Larsson wrote:
>> Den 2016-03-18 kl. 21:12, skrev Fleshgrinder:
>>> No worries you are not, not at all. I just wanted to thwart you and
>>> others in directly
10 matches
Mail list logo
