The RFC proposes ffi.enable=preload by default, that enables FFI only for CLI
and preloaded scripts.
Thanks. Dmitry.
From: Sara Golemon
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 18:53
To: Anatol Belski
Cc: Dmitry Stogov; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FFI
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:15 AM Anatol Belski wrote:
> IMO ffi.enable=true by default is ok.
Noted.
IMO ffi.enable=true by default is cause to vote NO on the feature.
Regards,
-Sara
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:15 AM Anatol Belski wrote:
> Hi Sara,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sara Golemon
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:20 PM
> > To: Dmitry Stogov
> > Cc: PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FF
Hi Sara,
> -Original Message-
> From: Sara Golemon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:20 PM
> To: Dmitry Stogov
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FFI - Foreign Function Interface
>
> I'm not super enthused by having "ffi.enable=true"
On 12/11/18 11:21 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:33 AM Christoph M. Becker
mailto:cmbecke...@gmx.de>> wrote:
On 06.12.2018 at 17:26, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Looks very interesting, especially for simplifying the landscape of
> extensions.
>
> Still, the amount of
Hi Sara,
On 12/11/18 7:19 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM Dmitry Stogov
mailto:dmi...@zend.com>> wrote:
I would like to start discussion of FFI RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ffi
I said this already privately, but I just want to repeat here in the open.
This thing is
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:33 AM Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> On 06.12.2018 at 17:26, Marco Pivetta wrote:
>
> > Looks very interesting, especially for simplifying the landscape of
> > extensions.
> >
> > Still, the amount of abbreviations and naming issues is quite huge:
> needs a
> > lot of
On 06.12.2018 at 17:26, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> Looks very interesting, especially for simplifying the landscape of
> extensions.
>
> Still, the amount of abbreviations and naming issues is quite huge: needs a
> lot of care on that end, IMO. Even just the name of the type (`FFI`) can
> simply be
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> I would like to start discussion of FFI RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ffi
>
> I said this already privately, but I just want to repeat here in the
open. This thing is DANGEROUS. I know you know that. I'm not telling you,
I'm stating it for
On 11.12.18 16:42, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> People who don't know what FFI is, don't need it.
I think this is a very dangerous way of designing, writing and documenting
software.
I appreciate your efforts in pushing this forward, but please reconsider
when approaching the naming problematic,
--
> *From:* Marco Pivetta
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 6, 2018 7:26:57 PM
> *To:* Dmitry Stogov
> *Cc:* PHP Internals List
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FFI - Foreign Function Interface
>
> Looks very interesting, especially for simplifying the landscape of
>
few people on @internals tried it.
Thanks. Dmitry.
From: Marco Pivetta
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 7:26:57 PM
To: Dmitry Stogov
Cc: PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] FFI - Foreign Function Interface
Looks very interesting, especially
Looks very interesting, especially for simplifying the landscape of
extensions.
Still, the amount of abbreviations and naming issues is quite huge: needs a
lot of care on that end, IMO. Even just the name of the type (`FFI`) can
simply be expanded to `ForeignFunctionInterface`.
Just my 2 cents.
13 matches
Mail list logo
