Denis,
I started reviewing the patch, but unfortunately things at work get a bit
hectic so haven't made too much progress ;(
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Denis Gasparin
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Did you have the time to review the patches? Any problem with them?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Denis
>
>
Hi Lukas:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:28:12AM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> Same deal as E_NOTICE. Either you care about them or you dont.
Exactly. The type hinting situation is unique. It is something that
applications will frequently want to handle gracefully in order to
provide usefu
On 8 June 2010 17:28, Brian Moon wrote:
>> The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already
>> documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting
>> the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity
>> here :)
>> Also, allowing "new (blah())
The operator that really determines this is 'new' - which is already
documented. So there isn't any ambiguity. Not to say that documenting
the other operators would be bad, just saying there's no ambiguity
here :)
Also, allowing "new (blah());" would be a fairly big BC break I'd say.
How? Mayb
On 8 June 2010 16:57, Ford, Mike wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jacob Oettinger [mailto:ja...@oettinger.dk]
>> Sent: 08 June 2010 14:09
>>
>> On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
>> >> Would it be equally
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Oettinger [mailto:ja...@oettinger.dk]
> Sent: 08 June 2010 14:09
>
> On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
> >> Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
> >>
> >> $r
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Lars Schultz [mailto:lars.schu...@toolpark.com]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 8 juni 2010 16:04
> Aan: internals@lists.php.net
> Onderwerp: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Array Dereferencing
>
> >> $result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
>
> I know that this is not much of a
> > > $result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
Isn't this issue just a matter of defining one thing as being correct
and then get on with it? There are lots of ambiguities in php's
grammar already.
--
troels
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://ww
$result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
I know that this is not much of an argument, but it works the same way
in Javascript too, which is very convenient. The intended behaviour is
obvious...even though it could be (mis-)interpreted by php.
Lars
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Ma
On 08/06/2010, at 12.41, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
>> Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
>>
>> $result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
>
> does this mean
>
>$result = new (ResultMaker()->getIt());
>
> or
>
>$
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 12:23 +0200, Jacob Oettinger wrote:
> Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
>
> $result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
does this mean
$result = new (ResultMaker()->getIt());
or
$result = (new ResultMaker())->getIt();
I assume the later, but that i
Hi
This is great.
Would it be equally simple to allow the syntax below?
$result = new ResultMaker()->getIt();
and
$resultOfFunc = returnsFunc()();
I think would add consistency because it would allow direct operations on any
returned value. I agree that it is not the most reader friendly cod
On 08/06/10 02:14, Tig wrote:
Thanks!
Very happy about this :]
-Tig
+1 :D
--
Mark Skilbeck
mahcuz.com | gtk.php.net | pecl.php.net/cairo | docs.php.net
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
2010/6/8 Nuno Lopes :
> Yep, sounds like a good idea! Feel free to commit that.
Can someone grant me the karma to fix it? Account: patrickallaert
Patch being committed in attachment.
> Nuno
>
> P.S.: I think at some point there was some distinction between 'test' and
> 'lcov-test', but I cannot r
14 matches
Mail list logo
