Hi all,
PHP grammar is far from being complex. It is possible to describe most
of the syntax with a simple explanation.
Example:
* We can separate a program into several statements.
* There're a couple of items that cannot be declared into different
places (namespace, use), so consider them as to
n.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/syntax.doc.html
Cheers,
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> PHP grammar is far from being complex. It is possible to describe most
> of the syntax with a simple explanation.
> Example:
>
> * We c
Hi all,
I promise myself to not revamp this discussion again, but it wasn't me
this time!
@Etienne: That RFC is outdated.
Since the last feedback form internals list, a lot of changes have
been made to that RFC. Maybe I should update it ASAP so you can
clearly understand what have changed to be c
Hi,
I'd love if you ever discuss these items for 5.4:
- ReflectionNamespace
Currently it's impossible to grab a docblock that documents an
Annotations, for example, or even access the namespace declaration.
It's also impossible to check which "use" is declared on the
namespace/file/class scope.
Hi Rasmus,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> - Annotations
>>
>> I already proposed a patch and none here discussed. You rather
>> preferred to shout "PHP doesn't
e message on thread
where actually had a discussion with some mature content instead of
personal feelings.
Regards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> On 9 May 2011 15:44, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that you are not interested o
nto php source code.
Thanks.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marcelo Gornstein [mailto:marce...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:20 AM
>> To: Stas Malyshev
>> Cc: guilhermebla...@gmail.com; PHP
wordpress users may count this.
Cheers,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 10:32 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Again what I commented on other thread and again you barely see what I
>> mention
ject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 05/09/2011 07:44 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>
>> > It seems to me that you are not interested on user's request and
>
>> > rather accept/implement only what
ks
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 10:48 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Rasmus,
>>
>> I already wrote an RFC, I already wrote a patch and none from php-src
>> gave me some valuable feedback.
>> During private con
Hi Ferenc,
I'll update the RFC to match the current implementation.
Pierrick is working to extract a diff more simplified so you can
quickly look at it.
Thanks.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:02 PM, guilhermebla...@gmai
Hi Stas,
Comments inline.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> If possible, could you look at the patch and give me high level ideas
>> of what could be changed?
>
> If the patch is the same RFC that is at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations, the same problems that
Hi Lester,
I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
idea and how code behave is there.
This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
Regards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> guilherme
ntation is *way* simpler.
Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
Regards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>
>>From: guilhermebla...@gmail.com [mailto:guilhermebla...@gmail.com]
>
>>Sent: Monday, May 09,
emoving the docblocks (or adding a cache, or
generating a file, etc, whatever you want). What does it prohibit you
from doing the same with native support?
Regards,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lester,
>>
Hi Stas,
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I updated the RFC. I may have missed one thing or two, but overall
>> idea and how code behave is there.
>> This question is answered on wiki RFC. =)
>>
>> Here is the direct link: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/annotations
>
> So
Hi,
You all think that mapping something can always be abstracted into a
few lines like the one you presented.
Well, in certain cases your idea is valid. I'd then point you an
Entity mapping of Doctrine 2 with and without Annotations, so you can
imagine how much it can abstract:
With Doctrine Ann
Hi Matthew,
There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks:
- Code with and without comments should act the same.
Also, no matter if it's inside docblocks or not, we'd still have a new
syntax. No matter what you do. Even a key => value is a new syntax.
But it seems that
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
Regards,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>>
>> so the probl
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
I'll keep the old one for history purposes. It seems that none from
core php devs acc
ed with performance, good OO design and
extensibility. =)
Cheers,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 17:07, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Is that still simple?
>
> You bloated the php example unnecessarily. This contains the same
> in
Hi Larz,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 16:53, schrieb Martin Scotta:
>>
>> Annotations are not required, you add them if you want to.
>
> Yes. sure. But I am sure that certain Annotations must be combined to
> unleash their purpose, no? There is no validatio
Hi Lester,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment.
>
> Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view
> that we simply do not agree on IF annotation should be implemen
Hi Rasmus,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/11/2011 01:39 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>> The link doesn't work, but I'm assuming it is this one?:
>> https://wiki.php.net/todo
>
> That was supposed to be wiki.php.net/rfc (iPad auto-correct messed it up)
>
>> In other w
Hi Larz,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
>>
>> - Entities with knowledge about its persistence information
>
> That must be something I simply have no knowledge about. But isn't it just
this subject and find some common sense. =)
Cheers,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:54 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Larz,
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Lars Schultz
>> wrote:
&g
@duke: Exactly.
The idea is to expose this support through Reflection API
@Marcelo: It is listed that this support would be necessary.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:06 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi duke,
&
+1
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Sean Coates wrote:
> I'm one of the people who've brought it up on Twitter. Today's discussion
> seems to have earned some traction, which is a step in the right direction, I
> believe.
>
>> I would prefer (as Rasmus pointed out) not to start a long discussio
You probably need to reset your password.
I had the same issue previously.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:50 AM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> Hmm, I can edit pages within the RFC namespace but I cannot edit
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM, dukeofgaming wr
I think the one that is active can be a voter.
Or maybe the ones that have any karma on php environment is considered a voter.
Cheers,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Reminder: Pls add your votes here:
>> https://wik
Hi,
APC +1
I don't think it should have OAuth2 bundled (and I don't consider OAuth v1 too).
Related to thrift, I'm more in favor of having a native Cassandra
implementation than bundling thrift on PHP.
Thrift's implementation is not good (sorry Scott) and the overhead of
bootstrapping, connectin
Hannes,
There's a RFC covering this. There's a patch also.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/splclassloader
[]s,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM, rod wrote:
> Yes sorry this is what I mean, a PSR0 compliant autoloader class built
> in as standard.
>
> $loader = new SplClassLoader();
> $loader->register
Hi,
I like this idea. But I'd like to ask something; maybe someone could
please correct the Example section of RFC?
Unfortunately, I cannot understand how it could work on "else"
conditional block, because $obj is undefined.
Cheers,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Hannes Landeholm wrote:
> Hell
Sebastian,
This is a hidden gem for us! =D
Thanks a lot for putting your effort into this.
Cheers,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> Thanks for working on this Sebastian, its really appreciated! +1 from me!
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it seems the class
haven't been merged since then.
What's the status of this? Can I expect SplClassLoader in 5.4.0?
It seems it was approved, but wasn't merged and thread was lost in space. =(
There's an RFC for it: https://wiki.php.n
Hi internals,
For all those interested, I have updated the RFC with better
explanation, included example implementation and also example usage.
If you have any other wishes, doubts, etc, feel free to ask on this
thread and I'll quickly answer here and also update the RFC
accordingly.
The url for
Hi Mario,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:07 PM, wrote:
> 2011/10/26 Matthew Weier O'Phinney :
>>
>> My main point, however, is that the standard was ratified quite some
>> time ago already -- we just now have parties interested in creating a
>> C-level implementation compatible with the standard to (
Hi Tyra3l,
Comments are inline.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, André Rømcke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Anthony Ferrara
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > I wasn't saying whether it should be included or not. I was saying
I'd rather suggest to split this poll into 3 questions:
1- The same as you wrote. Having it in SPL and in PHP 5.4
2- Have it in PHP 5.4 as an external extension (FIG, PSR or PSG),
enabled by default.
3- As an external extension, disabled by default. This would require
PHP core to reserve the names
Hi,
It seems we would never reach some consensus, so I prefer to stick to
the voting process.
Looks like it's another battle between core developers and framework
core developers, where the first ones don't see a benefit at all and
have to opt for a side while the other side is eagerly requesting
Hi Ivan,
I updated the RFC a few hours ago based on a lengthy discussion in
php-standards.
It seems after these 2 years of PSR-0, all the rules are kept, but
some changes were made to the original code (the one in RFC) to
enhance the support. They are:
- Multiple paths per namespace
- Silent mode
Hi Anthony,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Actually, I just re-read the RFC again and I noticed something that's
> really irksome to me:
>
>> Implementation extension
>
>> According to new threads in php-standards list, it seems all derived
>> implementations have inclu
Hi Ivan,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
wrote:
>
>
> On 07/11/11 18:41, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ivan,
>
> Hi,
>
>>
>> I updated the RFC a few hours ago based on a lengthy discussion in
>> php-standards.
&
Ok... I promised to complete the RFC and here I am.
I wrapped the entire idea, PHP implementation of what I'm proposing all in RFC.
If you're interested, feel free to review the document, highlight if I
missed something and update/add your votes.
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/splclassloader
Answering
, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:17 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Remove is useless. conditionally add loaders and you're done.
>> AddAll is ok for user land, but we focus on basic stuff, not fluffy
>> implementations. It can be easily done in userland.
> ... Just like the
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:28 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Because there's no need to bring to C a single foreach.
>> Also, if you re-read the RFC, you'll see that SplClassLoader is
>> extendable for personalized developer needs, such as an ad
Cache layer in constructor. If it's part of the interface, it cannot
be changed.
RFC is now updated covering this. If you have more questions or
suggestions, feel free to tell me.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> Thanks.
> It&#x
PS: I'd love to point you all this article... this is something that
motivates me to push this RFC forward. =)
http://phpmaster.com/the-importance-of-standards/
Cheers,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:23 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> For all those interested, I implemented what I
Hi,
@RDohms
What you said is pretty valid. If you're not going to use it, you vote
against it?
You may not use it, but many others can. It's a true state.
@Anthony
I already heard your points many times. I know you're against it.
I also know the voting should be reset, but before the reset, I w
Hi internals,
I won't enter on this thread of "Who can vote", but I'll get around it
during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejected or it's still
pending. It's a long email, so take a seat and read carefully. I have
no means to hurt
Hi Rasmus,
Comments inline.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 07:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> My short version of this entire email is very simple question. Is PHP
>> meritocracy based?
>
> It is.
I'd rather say
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
> On Wed Nov 9 10:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Some would simply say "he only did that because he got 3 proposals
>> rejected". Others would say "he is pressuring A to b
Hi Anthony,
Thanks immensely for your input.
Without such action, it's extremely hard to improve the RFC. =)
Awesome action from your side.
I'll place my comments inline.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Guilherme et al,
>
> Since you asked me for feedback on how I would
Hi David,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:31 AM, David Muir wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 01:31 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi Anthony,
>>
>> Thanks immensely for your input.
>> Without such action, it's extremely hard to improve the RFC. =)
>> Awesome a
Finally someone understood precisely what PHP needs to evolve as a language
for the next 35 years! #not
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> This brightened up my Monday morning.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Michael Kliewe
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Frank,
> >
Hi internals!
I want to revive an old patch I was working on last year, and open for
discussion the last missing piece to make it fully complete, allowing me to
write a RFC.
Link to patch introducing support to private classes:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/947
Currently, there's no way to
ssary to finalize the patch (this is
the last missing piece as it currently stands), so I could officially
propose for discussion by everyone here.
Regards,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Guilherme,
>
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Currently, ther
Hi,
One thing that should be worth mentioning is that my approach of private
classes is decoupled in 2 parts.
The first one as the ability to prevent instantiation outside of namespace
and sub-namespaces. The second is the ability to access protected members,
which matches your wish of friend cla
Hi,
I am currently working on class visibility support aiming PHP 7.1. Spoke
with Derick to give me some north to finalize the patch and write the RFC.
Your wishes are being listened, my friend! =)
On Nov 10, 2015 19:25, "Karoly Negyesi" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one of the Drupal core developers I n
+1 on (a)
It's perfectly normal to have issues fixed between last RC and GA.
[]s,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Bishop Bettini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Anatol Belski
> wrote:
>
> > a) release on 26th including all known bug fixes
> > b) do RC8, assume there are no bugs, s
Hi,
I'm the co-author of RFC of Annotations, co-author of Annotations in
docblock which I abandoned for being conceptually wrong and co-author of
Doctrine Annotations.
Comments such as the one from Lester Caine "In previous discussions it was
pointed out that a substantial amount of legacy code a
I can give you a good argument.
opcache.save_comments=0
Make it work.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote on 25/11/2015 17:39:
>
>> On 11/25/15 11:00 AM, Rowan Collins wrote:
>>
>>> I don't feel that strongly in favour of docblocks, but I don't think t
the beginning about shared hosting, you just entered
in an infinite loop.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Pedro Cordeiro
wrote:
> On top of it, it'd break obfuscators like Zend Guard.
>
> 2015-11-25 15:58 GMT-02:00 guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com>:
Hi Rowan,
I'm avoiding drilling down as much as I can to explain every single
decision motivation of the 2010's patch, which hints every time why
docblocks are bad.
Maybe another example may help you to illustrate the problem; all I want is
to add a multi-lined text in an annotation (using your do
ee this natively
available and just exposes your lack of interest into language improvement.
Regards,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> On 25 November 2015 19:02:37 GMT, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi Rowa
Let's be clear. I haven't seen any user asking for traits, which introduced
almost the same amount of performance cost and complexity to ZE. It was
proposed by a "long term contributor" and everybody said yay.
When multiple userland people ask about the same feature, every single
major framework u
update the RFC.
[]s,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote on 26/11/2015 15:14:
>
>> I haven't seen any user asking for traits
>>
>
> Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>
Answers inline
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Chris Riley wrote:
>
> On 26 November 2015 at 16:05, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok then. I'll pretend that lack of interest didn't happen many other
>> situations (
Hi,
My biggest concern about supporting friend classes is the ability to access
non-intentional to be accessed code outside of the original class's
knowledge. This by itself is very dangerous.
I do see however package-private classes as a possibility (I actually have
a partially running patch for
Here is my reasons for no:
1- Non-intuitive behavior
2- Hard to read code, takes more time to understand underlying logic/flow
3- YAANPI => Yet Another Alternate Named Parameters Implementation (when I
look at future scope)
4- Most common usage form (first example) still forces you to type almost
My personal take on this:
Let's add just more 1 function over a 9 function's array API, because I
want to optimize 3 lines in my PHP code, and language lack of Generics
while we still refuse to carefully think about a proper OO Collection API.
Regards,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Matthew
To me it's simply as that:
class_statement:
variable_modifiers optional_type property_list ';' { $$ = $2;
$$->attr = $1 }
| ...
property_list:
property_list ',' property { $$ = zend_ast_list_add($1, $3); }
| property { $$ = zend_ast_create_list(1, ZEND_AST_PROP_DECL,
My code version is not complete, as the references changed when you include
the optional_type.
It shouldn't be hard to change though... like $$ = $3 and also hold $2
somewhere.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > On 31 במרץ 2016, at 20:48, "guilhe
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
Hi,
Unsetting properties is used by a range of libraries I am aware of,
including Doctrine (actually any project that relies on proxy generation).
Breaking this "feature" would be a catastrophe to a lot of projects.
There is an alternative though, which would help: property getter/setter
would not
Hi internals,
It all started with a PR over doctrine/annotations (
https://github.com/doctrine/annotations/pull/69), where a contributor
decided to propose supporting group use support.
The issue starts with this, which it is perfectly supported:
use Foo\Bar, Foo\Woo;
While multiple group uses
one already?
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/group_use_declarations
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 9:01 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi internals,
>>
>>
>> It all started with a PR over doctrine/annotations (
>> htt
Hi,
Here are a couple of comments towards Generics support to PHP.
1- Even though mentioned, I'd still use "extends" or "implements" instead
of "is" (which would be a new pseudo-reserved keyword) to enforce data type
consistency and prevent developers to potentially referring to one thing
while c
I don't know if mid-thread answering may lead to top-posting, but if it
does, I'm sorry... =\
Answer inline:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Dominic Grostate <
codekest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've made an amendment to the RFC to clarify on the Nested Types, which is
> indeed supposed to be
I read the RFC and I want to highlight why I'll vote -1 on it even before
it goes to voting.
IMHO, it looks backwards to what the language is progressing. The
introduction of nullable type hint as a separate notation than a simple
type hint makes it *very* hard to implement typed properties, facto
ke .NET and Swift).
Regards,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Rowan Collins
wrote:
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote on 20/04/2016 03:54:
>
>> 1- Even though mentioned, I'd still use "extends" or "implements" instead
>> of "is" (which woul
g else),
> because we already may use NULL default value.
>
> However usage of "?" for arguments also may make sense. Someone may like
> this, someone not.
>
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>
> --
> *From:* guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> *Sen
I might answer you by given a scenario that happened this week here at work.
Because our non-broken language relies on a loose type system, a developer
of my company wrote a property that accepts null, int, string, object,
whatever as a property.
This property was declared in a class that is used
The question here is how type strictness would benefit the language.
I agree with you on most parts. But still... if the class was declared like
this:
class CancelOutdatedOrdersDTO {
public int $olderThan;
}
Wouldn't that be solved entirely? Code would crash (through a TypeError),
it would ne
I see that some of you are confusing union types with intersecting types
here. The idea is not an OR, but an AND.
I'll repeat the same example again to try to exemplify what I mentioned:
class AA {}
interface B {}
interface C {}
class BB extends AA implements B {}
class CC extends AA implements B,
Hi Dmitry,
As a previous suggester of metadata information built-in into PHP, and also
one of developers of the most used metadata library written in PHP, I
understand this feature implementation requires several design decisions
and also a good understanding of specific situations users may requi
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> On 04/22/2016 04:05 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> As a previous suggester of metadata information built-in into PHP, and
> also one of developers of the most used metadata library writte
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> On 04/22/2016 06:39 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/22/2016 04:05 AM,
>> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
&
Another thing that looks odd to me i that every time you call new
ReflectionClass, a new reflection_object gets created.
Isn't there a way to get this "cached" somehow in zend_class_entry?
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:11 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com
Hi all,
Yesterday I spent a considerable 2h talking about Generics in Doctrine
channel.
We discussed the specifics of each boundary that PHP's implementation could
take advantage. Here are our findings, which I'll illustrate using Java
equivalents:
1- Upper bounds (T extends A)
We all understood
Nice!
I've read the RFC and there's only one missing thing that is either
undocumented or missed during patch creation: instanceof.
I'd be amazing if we could do: $foo instanceof Foo & Bar
Cheers,
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Josh Di Fabio
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Levi Mor
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Jesse Schalken
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:50 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Yesterday I spent a considerable 2h talking about Generics in Doctrine
>&
Sorry for top-posting... it looks like GMail top-posts everything that
doesn't have a reply character right before the inherited (replied email),
which i just did.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:26 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri,
Lester,
I understand that IDEs are doing a nice job over the toolset already
created around documentation. That's what phpdoc and friends do.
Also, if you take PHPStorm, it also helps you add Doctrine annotations with
ease. But this is just one IDE, and that's what they're supposed to do;
help dev
Hi internals,
PHP 7 leverages a lot the performance internally and many PHP applications
in the wild. Much of these improvement came by experimentation through
PHPNG and the usage of efficient data structures internally. This idea of
performance improvements are crucial to handle more requests, re
@Rasmus: This approach is too broad, allowing situations like Marco pointed
out. I'd have to vote -1 on it too if you move forward, specially if you
consider things like << "How do I grab this?" >> and other weirdness.
@Rowan: Annotations should be immutable by nature. Still, I would love if
you
threat /THret/ noun: a statement of an intention to inflict pain,
injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for
something done or not done.
Anyway, can we vote on this RFC?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:54 AM Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:31 PM Dan Ackroyd
Hi all,
I tried as much as I could to stay away from this discussion. My
personal take is that breaking the language in two is a *really bad
idea* (shouldn't I have put caps here instead?).
Anyway, people are commenting a lot on features that adds a feature to
the language, but nothing was being s
Nikita,
I'd suggest to wait until the current vote ends and then open a new
RFC to vote this one, otherwise it'll be disrupting.
Cheers,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:29 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:17 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > I've opened the vote
Hi internals!
One of my old PRs to PHP that was claimed to be merged disappeared
from master. However, the upgrade note is still there in master and
7.4beta1.
Here is the PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/937
Here is the commit referencing it:
https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/0adfa0339
101 - 200 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
