Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Tue, July 7, 2009 12:54 pm, Philip Olson wrote:
>> - Reclassification : Discuss how we handle this, like should old/new
>> lists both receive emails?
>
> Both lists should receive reclassifaction notification, and nothing
> more, imho.
>
>> - Consider different captcha (
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Mark wrote:
> I personally would be highly in favor of adding type hinting/casting
> BUT with the benifit that php actually becomes faster if you do things
> like that. Afterall you can use way more effective c code if you know
> what you expect right? As for the ver
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM, George Antoniadis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
>> Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
>> list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch
>> has been revised to ad
Would it make sense if enabling soap module forces php build system to
enable curl-wrappers ?
endrazine wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you for your replies.
First of, I am glad I am not the only one to think there is an issue
with the way SoapClient() deals with ss
The idea is great. In fact this was in my todo list for php 5.3..
Please give me a few more days to review the patch.
Nuno
P.S.: you can add on more point to your list: you get to know the PID of the
exec'ed process instead of the PID of the shell.
- Original Message -
I've just finis
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
> list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch
> has been revised to address the major concerns that were identified
> (breakage of bin
On 7 Jul 2009, at 02:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I would like to ask all developers to voice their opinions of
whether it makes sense to add this to 5.3 or to throw it away
(either one is fine btw). To keep the process simple & flamewar
free, please restrict yourself to +/- (1/0), next wee
Since the votes seem to switch to 6.0 instead of 5.3, would it be
feasible to throw an E_DEPRECATED in 5.3.1 if one declares a
function/class called int/bool/object/whatever ?
Just throwing the idea in the wild since I am not able to assess if
that's doable, but it might be a good idea to add it a
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> One more thing: It seems there is no reason not to simply commit it to
>> HEAD. That's the development branch, if the thing isn't good, it can be
>
> Erm, I was under impression that development branch is for developing new
> func
Hi!
One more thing: It seems there is no reason not to simply commit it to
HEAD. That's the development branch, if the thing isn't good, it can be
Erm, I was under impression that development branch is for developing
new functionalities which were agreed on, not for committing any code
that
Hi!
Only because there is a class hint (currently supported) function foo
(StdClass $foo) {} and there was a request to support a generic object
hint. So one became IS_CLASS and one is IS_OBJECT.
I'd say IS_OBJECT can fit both - we could treat empty class name as "any
object".
--
Stanislav
On Wed, July 8, 2009 7:34 am, endrazine wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> The first possibility is to directly patch SoapClient() to force it
> use
> libcurl (wich has ssl verification features). While doable
> tehcnically,
> I wonder if my patch for it would be merged into the framewor
On Mon, July 6, 2009 7:52 pm, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the
> internals list regarding type hinting based on my original patch.
> Since then the patch has been revised to address the major concerns
> that were identified (breakage of binary
On Tue, July 7, 2009 4:48 am, Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 01:01, Brian A.
> Seklecki wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> Perhaps we should clarify the socket tuneables such as:
>>
>> ; Default timeout for socket based streams (seconds)
>> default_socket_timeout = 60
>>
>> These are slightly
On Tue, July 7, 2009 12:54 pm, Philip Olson wrote:
> - Reclassification : Discuss how we handle this, like should old/new
> lists both receive emails?
Both lists should receive reclassifaction notification, and nothing
more, imho.
> - Consider different captcha (like reCaptcha) for anonymous user
Aside: I'd like to propose an internals-specific mutation of Godwin's
law, which might state:
"As a PHP internals discussion thread grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Perl 6 approaches 1."
JG
On 07/07/09 6:14 PM, Wez Furlong wrote:
-1 for 5.x
+1 for 6.0
Otherwise the P
A volunteer is needed to document GC functionality with PHP 5.3+.
Ideally this means:
1. Create a FAQ about:
- What the heck this is
- Why we care
- Why we might disable it
2. Document via the following:
- http://php.net/zend.enable-gc
- http://php.net/gc-collect-cycles
- http://php.net/gc-d
Hi.
On 08.07.2009 12:11 Uhr, Steven Van Poeck wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
With this logic, we got a PHP 5.3 as well, and with the same logic
there will be a PHP 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and we never get to 6. Instead of
putting stuff in PHP 5.4 (which at the moment is *not* planned), why
not focus all ef
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you for your replies.
First of, I am glad I am not the only one to think there is an issue
with the way SoapClient() deals with ssl. Now, I have been suggested a
few ways to deal with the problem, partly off list, and I'd appreciate
help in deci
2) The patch should define something like ZEND_ARG_TYPE_INFO()
Yeah, that can be used or existing macros can be retained using "type"
parameter, which can even made BC compliant by using new sets of
constants that match the IS_ARRAY or "not hint" semantics.
3) do we really need IS_CLASS c
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 14:00, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Philip Olson wrote:
- Importing
Of what..?
Existing bugs from php/pecl/php/gtk
Ah yes, that's 3rd stage stuff, when (if?) there's single installation
handling all bugs for all our projects..
- Tagging : Allow pe
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 14:00, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Philip Olson wrote:
>> - Importing
>
> Of what..?
Existing bugs from php/pecl/php/gtk
>> - Tagging : Allow people to optionally attach tags to bugs
>
> What tags..?
I assume web2.0 tagging (as in gmail labels for example, or blog entry tags..
Philip Olson wrote:
The new system[1] is based off the pear.php.net bug system (via Jani),
which long ago was a fork of our current (bugs.php.net). Because of
Pear folks forked it for http://pear.php.net/bugs/ and pecl folks took
the same at some point..(?).
this, some of these items are al
Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 09:56, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
You want json result set of status/assigned/last updated/summary/...
just let php-webmas...@lists.php.net know and it'll get fixed as soon
as someone sees your mail (we can't keep up with the "irreleva
1) The patch introduce several new reserved words (resource, numeric,
scalar, object). This may break existing applications which use these
names as function or class names.
2) The patch should define something like ZEND_ARG_TYPE_INFO()
3) do we really need IS_CLASS constant?
4) arg_info->arr
Jani Taskinen wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 7-Jul-09, at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, a
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 09:56, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Hannes Magnusson wrote:
>> You want json result set of status/assigned/last updated/summary/...
>> just let php-webmas...@lists.php.net know and it'll get fixed as soon
>> as someone sees your mail (we can't keep up with the "irrelevant
>> traffi
Hello Hannes,
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 03:17, Hannes
Magnusson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 20:15, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 18:43, Sean Coates wrote:
Just another question: may you please list me all the possible
'Status' field values? In particular we are interested
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 7-Jul-09, at 8:43 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
That doesn't really change the timing, especially since you said you
have been using it for 2 years. Why pick the week after the 5.3 release
to propose it for 5.3? It makes very little sense to me, and I think
consensus i
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be ve
At 21:38 07/07/2009, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
-1 on 5.3. The window for adding new major features to 5.3 is obviously
long gone. Not sure why you are even suggesting it.
+0 on parts of it for the next major release. You still haven't
convinced me that strict type checking won't cause more proble
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
be very
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week
or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major concerns that were
identified (breakage of binary compatibility) as well extended w
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
> > Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals list
> > regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the patch has
> > been revised to address the major concerns
On 08.07.2009, at 10:25, Paul Biggar wrote:
- wait for Lukas to finish what he's doing
- new vote, more options (5.3.x/5.4/6.0, Lukas'/yours, make it clear
what we're voting for)
Do not wait for me. I have decided it doesn't make sense for me to
write this RFC. There was essentially nobody
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Graham Kelly wrote:
> However, this is ONLY because I do not feel PHP 5.3 is the place to put
> this. However, I do have to agree with Ilia here that PHP 6 is too far away
> and it would be nice to have this feature long before then. I would however,
> be very for adding someth
2009/7/8 Ilia Alshanetsky :
> All of the identified issues can be resolved and none of them represent a
> major challenge to address. However, if there is no consensus to put this in
OK, but you had not said you would resolve them. I would appreciate
some detail on what you will do to address them
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Last week or so there was a fairly detailed discussion on the internals
list regarding type hinting based on my original patch. Since then the
patch has been revised to address the major concerns that were
identified (breakage of binary compatibility) as well extended wi
38 matches
Mail list logo
