Hi!
1. What's missing and should be added?
First thing perhaps ... which IS Pierre's problem ... Windows snapshots
But short of trawling the commit tree ... what HAS already been added?
( links to the CURRENT release notes from the windows site are broken by the
way )
We have NEWS for this,
Stas Malyshev wrote:
I'm totally against an alpha at this stage. Not before we have
clarified all we need to get a clean release.
OK, so what do you propose to do? I.e., if you think there are things to
be discussed, set the agenda. I think that besides typing, trunk is ok
for alpha, you obvi
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> You're absolutely right, sorry about that!
>>
>> Zeev
>
> However if this is something controlled by php setup, it becomes another
> 'register_global'. If my users have to have it off for my projects and on
> for oth
On 2010-08-11, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> To think that one guy considered that he is allowed to decide to fire
> a 5.4, announce it, all that without a single discussion in the public
> list is really bad. Even worst is that nobody actually even
2010/8/12 Johannes Schlüter :
> Yes, my blog posting reflects my opinion and therefore is manipulative
Indeed. Depending where you'll look, you'll find big communities that
have no clue about or no need for type hinting/checking/casting, some
communities where "strict" typing is heresy, others whe
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 01:21 +0200, Josh Davis wrote:
> Either way, let me skew your numbers a bit by using Ilia's blog post
> from last year [1] and earlier this year [2]. If that was my only
> benchmark I'd say that there is unanimous support for the
> implementation in current trunk. I guess it s
On 12 August 2010 00:11, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I'm not sure how long you've been on internals, but I'm not sure there's any
> precedence to such strong and diverse opposition to a feature - amongst both
> core developers, original authors and the community at large.
I don't know, I remember some
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> With all due respect, there are plenty of things already in trunk to
> make it a worth while effort to start planning the 5.4 release. Just
> because you disagree, an opinion you are entitled to (like everyone
> else), does no
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Pierre,
>
> With all due respect, there are plenty of things already in trunk to
> make it a worth while effort to start planning the 5.4 release. Just
> because you disagree, an opinion you are entitled to (like everyone
> else), does n
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 00:58 12/08/2010, Josh Davis wrote:
>>
>> > Now that strict typing is pretty clearly off the table - how would those
>>
>> Wait, what? Clearly off the table?
>
> Yes, clearly off the table.
>
> I'm not sure how long you've been on internal
Hi!
I'm totally against an alpha at this stage. Not before we have
clarified all we need to get a clean release.
OK, so what do you propose to do? I.e., if you think there are things to
be discussed, set the agenda. I think that besides typing, trunk is ok
for alpha, you obvious don't think
Pierre,
With all due respect, there are plenty of things already in trunk to
make it a worth while effort to start planning the 5.4 release. Just
because you disagree, an opinion you are entitled to (like everyone
else), does not mean it is a no go, last I checked no one had veto
powers on the fut
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> It'd be alpha, you have enough time.
Is it really the new way to do things in php.net? Totally ignore other
developers, discuss things privately, act like the last of the last
and drop a mail to "officially" announce a new release/big chan
Daniel,
In order to radically change PHP you need very strong consensus. If
you don't have it, the status quo holds.
Strict typing doesn't have anything remotely close to strong
consensus. It doesn't really matter if a lot of people support it -
there are also plenty of people who oppose i
Hi!
I think using trunk as base is a mistake. We should begin using a
stable branch (5.3) and merge what we want for the next release. It is
also too early to begin to think about 5.4 as there is still a couple
of things to clarify before. The most important ones being:
Why have trunk then? 5.
At 00:58 12/08/2010, Josh Davis wrote:
> Now that strict typing is pretty clearly off the table - how would those
Wait, what? Clearly off the table?
Yes, clearly off the table.
I'm not sure how long you've been on internals, but I'm not sure
there's any precedence to such strong and diverse
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 23:26, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Now that strict typing is pretty clearly off the table [...]
Did I miss a vote or something? The only thing I've seen is the same
small group of people that has been fighting for the last few months.
Your reasoning seems to be "there are peopl
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 23:34 +0200, Pierre Joye wrote:
> - What are the top new things we like to have in
I would say
* Traits
* Aray dereferencing
* $this support inclosures
As language changes, in combination with performance improvements make a
good package.
This combined wi
On 11 August 2010 23:26, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> matter how much I try to explain - it won't help - we probably see things
> too differently for us to ever agree on it. Let's end it by saying that a
> great deal of people here think it's horrible to introduce strict typing to
> PHP period.
Sure, a
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is clear
> to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and with Rasmus,
> Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as of now it can not
> b
At 00:26 12/08/2010, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Moving forward with both is certainly not the only option, I'd say
(given the paragraph above) that it's not an option at all. At the
very least, there's one other option which is doing nothing. And
that's assuming we can't reach widespread consensus t
At 23:59 11/08/2010, Josh Davis wrote:
Not sure what kind of impact we're talking about here. Currently,
there's no scalar type hinting and there will never be a consensus
around strict XOR weak. Having an implementation that allows both
while reusing a familiar syntax (parentheses as a way typec
On 11 August 2010 21:59, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Consensus about what? About two similar features with slightly different
> syntax being a bad thing? I don't think we need consensus for that. That's
> not up for discussion. It's an axiom for PHP.
Of course it depends on your definition of "simi
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You're absolutely right, sorry about that!
Zeev
However if this is something controlled by php setup, it becomes another
'register_global'. If my users have to have it off for my projects and on for
others ... complexity in managing instead :(
At 23:11 11/08/2010, Alex
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Josh Davis wrote:
>
>
> If I'm using type checking as a sanity check then it doesn't work as
> soon as it accepts "1" for an int. The described "weak typehinting" is
> good if you're looking for a way to validate input. However, it does
> not work if you're trying
Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is
clear to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and
with Rasmus, Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as
of now it can not be a part of an official PHP release.
O
You're absolutely right, sorry about that!
Zeev
At 23:11 11/08/2010, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
You misunderstood my comment.
Lester asked if he can still have his APIs without type-hinting and I
told him that he can.
That's all
We're not talking about complexities of understanding
--
Alexey Z
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 22:50 11/08/2010, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow
>> >> us to proceed wit
At 22:50 11/08/2010, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>
>> +1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow
>> us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on.
>
> A slight aside he
At 22:54 11/08/2010, Josh Davis wrote:
On 11 August 2010 20:40, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Josh,
>
> This too (having both options) was debated many times. Read the archives.
I have already read the archives thank you very much. I'm sure you
have too and you remember that there's never been a conse
On 11 August 2010 20:40, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Josh,
>
> This too (having both options) was debated many times. Read the archives.
I have already read the archives thank you very much. I'm sure you
have too and you remember that there's never been a consensus. I'm
sure that Derick remembers them
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>
>> +1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow
>> us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on.
>
> A slight aside here, as I have not be bothering about what HAS be
At 21:30 11/08/2010, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is
clear to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and
with Rasmus, Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it,
as of now it can not be a part of an offi
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
+1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow
us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on.
A slight aside here, as I have not be bothering about what HAS been implemented
typing wise ... A large section of the code a work
2010/8/11 Johannes Schlüter :
> Hi,
>
> trying to get back to productive issues:
>
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:41 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> After speaking to a few developers in DPC, I think it makes sense for us to
>> drop the Sqlite2 extensions from Trunk as they are superseded by the Sqli
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is clear
> to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and with Rasmus,
> Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as of now it can not
> b
On 11 August 2010 19:11, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> Did you read second RFC? The one which is about "so called" weak typehinting.
> Stas (and a lot of people on this list) prefer it.
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/typecheckingstrictandweak
Yes of course, but reposting that link is a good idea. :)
> I
On 8/11/10 1:30 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is
clear to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and
with Rasmus, Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as
of now it can not be a part of an official
Derick,
How is it different from having both options? Given enough time
isn't it exactly the same thing? Argument verification should not be
a customizable feature.
Collecting the info (for documentation purposes and reflection) is
something else and I think that's fine - and then the only
Josh,
This too (having both options) was debated many times. Read the archives.
Short version? Strict typing is evil. The only thing that's even
worse? Adding both Strict typing and something else. Why? You get
everything that's bad about strict typing, combined with the added
confusion
+1, I think that's the most sensible solution for now that would allow
us to proceed with 5.4, something we all seem to be in agreement on.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is clear
> to everybody tha
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> So I'd propose doing the following:
>
> 1. Moving parameter typing to a feature branch (by branching current trunk and
> then rolling back the typing part in the trunk).
> 2. Starting 5.4 alpha process after that basing on trunk.
>
> Any objections to
Hi
2010/8/11 Stas Malyshev :
> So I'd propose doing the following:
>
> 1. Moving parameter typing to a feature branch (by branching current trunk
> and then rolling back the typing part in the trunk).
> 2. Starting 5.4 alpha process after that basing on trunk.
>
> Any objections to this?
+1 for m
Hi
2010/8/11 Stas Malyshev :
> I like the idea, though it looks like this function is a re-implementation
> of the engine parsing, which is not good. The function that actually reuses
> the engine function would be much better.
I did have a short peak at the code and yes I belive we could
impleme
On 11 August 2010 19:20, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> I'm against it on sanity and logic grounds. I explained the reasons (for the
> Nth time) above. If you still can't comprehend that there's logic behind
> what I am saying and call it "ideology" - well, I guess there's a limit of
> what one can explai
Hi!
I think by now, whatever you think on strict typing/typehints, it is
clear to everybody that there's no consensus about this feature, and
with Rasmus, Zeev & Andi, along with many others, being against it, as
of now it can not be a part of an official PHP release.
On the other hand, we h
Hi!
Sara wrote an extension for zend_parse_parameters() to expose it to
userland and its available in PECL:
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/pecl/params/trunk/
Im a +1 for exposing such functionality from the core/stdlib.
I like the idea, though it looks like this function is a
re-implementation of
Hi!
Yeah, hmm, no, and it is disingenuous of you to equate type hints to
PHP becoming statically typed. I'm sure that some people would love to
See? That's exactly why I am so opposed to calling it "type hints".
Because if you called it proper name - strict typing, you'd say "it is
disingenu
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Josh Davis wrote:
> On 11 August 2010 08:23, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
>>> I very much can, it's just not my intention. I want to be able to use
>>> type hinting/type checking as a sanity check. If I write a method
>>> whose signature is foo(int $n) I signal my inten
On 11 August 2010 08:23, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> I very much can, it's just not my intention. I want to be able to use
>> type hinting/type checking as a sanity check. If I write a method
>> whose signature is foo(int $n) I signal my intention to only accept
>
> Then you should use statically typ
> anyway .. for the love of god, could be please stop arguing in circles,
> nothing .. really nothing that people brought forth pro/con any approach in
> regards to type checking/hinting whatever hasn't been mentioned on this list
> multiple times.
+1
> please please please please .. read the
On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:01, Elizabeth M Smith wrote:
> Well this is turning into a real flamefest.
I'm now totally confused to be honest.
> Personally I really HATE the 5.3 implementation of "typehints" - heck you
> can't even typehint arrays with an arrayobject instance, it's not hinting in
>
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:03:14 +0100, Alexey Zakhlestin
wrote:
2010/8/11 Ryan Panning :
Because the current syntax used for type hinting
classes/arrays is strict. If changed, you would need to specify that
scaler
types are weak but classnames are strict and now you have a WTH moment.
Not
On 11 Aug 2010, at 15:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Maybe I'm old school, but in my opinion, trunk should only contain
> agreed-upon features. It should also always build and pass tests
> successfully. It's not the wild-west version of PHP, it's PHP's next
> version, in progress. Want to work o
Hi Elizabeth
2010/8/11 Elizabeth M Smith :
> Well this is turning into a real flamefest.
>
> Personally I really HATE the 5.3 implementation of "typehints" - heck you
> can't even typehint arrays with an arrayobject instance, it's not hinting in
> any way shape or form and is generally broken.
>
>
Well this is turning into a real flamefest.
Personally I really HATE the 5.3 implementation of "typehints" - heck
you can't even typehint arrays with an arrayobject instance, it's not
hinting in any way shape or form and is generally broken.
On the other hand I'd like to be able to have the s
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:37:01 +0100, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:29 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> * What about allowing properties with function names as
strings or
> array($obj_or_class, 'method'), won't that be needed for
being
> consistent with
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
Good that this discussion happens in a secret place on a list no
"community" members can see.
Oh wait. It doesn't. Oh and wait we let users participate!
And "we know best" - well part of this is that for doing the discussion
in a sane way you need some minimum knowledge
Hi,
trying to get back to productive issues:
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:41 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> After speaking to a few developers in DPC, I think it makes sense for us to
> drop the Sqlite2 extensions from Trunk as they are superseded by the Sqlite3
> extensions. The sqlite2 library is
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:17 -0500, Ryan Panning wrote:
> One other comment I forgot with my original post:
> Why not leave the choice (strict/weak) up to the end users by
> implementing both using the syntax I commented about? Is one way or
> the
> other so bad that it can't be implemented?
Yes
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:37:01 +0100, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:29 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> * What about allowing properties with function names as
strings or
> array($obj_or_class, 'method'), won't that be needed for
being
> consistent with
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 09:55 -0500, Ryan Panning wrote:
> IMO some of these debates should be brought to the end
> users. Who uses PHP in the end? The users. (And yes, I know the devs
> here do to..) What is one thing most companies go by? The customers
> come first. This "we know best" attitude h
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
...
anyway .. for the love of god, could be please stop arguing in circles, nothing
.. really nothing that people brought forth pro/con any approach in regards to
type checking/hinting whatever hasn't been mentioned on this list multiple
times.
...
I agree with you
On 11.08.2010, at 16:55, Ryan Panning wrote:
> Now, changing the current implementation to "weak type hinting" would be more
> confusing. Because the current syntax used for type hinting classes/arrays is
> strict. If changed, you would need to specify that scaler types are weak but
> classnam
2010/8/11 Ryan Panning :
> Because the current syntax used for type hinting
> classes/arrays is strict. If changed, you would need to specify that scaler
> types are weak but classnames are strict and now you have a WTH moment.
Not really. Class type-hinting is not strict. The only reason why it
Victor Bolshov wrote:
Having two similar syntaxes that work differently - would make the
situation even worse that it is now - I beleive. And I totally agree
with Rasmus - strict typed language mustnt be called PHP. (Just a poor
user's notice to all of you internals' geeks out there)
2010/8/11 S
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:29 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>
> > * What about allowing properties with function names as
> strings or
> > array($obj_or_class, 'method'), won't that be needed for
> being
> > consistent with local variables?
>
> Well, you cannot do "$a = 'phpinfo
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:57:47 +0100, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 14:38 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
I've updated the wiki page for "Closures with objects extension" with
things that are in "Proposal A with modification"s but are not
implemented:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/c
On 11 August 2010 15:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 15:14 11/08/2010, Richard Quadling wrote:
>>
>> On 11 August 2010 12:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > We need to remove strict typing from trunk before we release anything
>> > 'official' from php.net
>>
>> I thought "trunk" is, to some degree, the "w
On 11.08.2010, at 16:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Maybe I'm old school, but in my opinion, trunk should only contain
> agreed-upon features. It should also always build and pass tests
> successfully. It's not the wild-west version of PHP, it's PHP's next
> version, in progress. Want to work on
At 15:14 11/08/2010, Richard Quadling wrote:
On 11 August 2010 12:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> We need to remove strict typing from trunk before we release anything
> 'official' from php.net
I thought "trunk" is, to some degree, the "work in progress" /
"developers only", YMMV branch. Pretty much
On 8/11/10 1:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
We've also had quite a lengthy discussion on this topic, and there
was more support for 'weak' typing then there was for strict typing.
Yes, I would like to restate the obvious from my email in May:
Really, I am confused what the argument is about. We a
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 14:38 +0100, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> I've updated the wiki page for "Closures with objects extension" with
> things that are in "Proposal A with modification"s but are not implemented:
>
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#status_as_of_august_10_2010
>
> I p
I wouldn't mind living with neither but I think it's two separate discussions.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ilia Alshanetsky [mailto:i...@prohost.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:52 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Stas Malyshev; Johannes Schlüter; Kalle Sommer Nielsen; Internals;
> D
> -Original Message-
> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith [mailto:m...@pooteeweet.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:19 AM
> To: rquadl...@googlemail.com
> Cc: Zeev Suraski; Ilia Alshanetsky; Stas Malyshev; Johannes Schlüter; Kalle
> Sommer Nielsen; Internals; Derick Rethans
> Subject: Re: [PH
I've updated the wiki page for "Closures with objects extension" with
things that are in "Proposal A with modification"s but are not implemented:
http://wiki.php.net/rfc/closures/object-extension#status_as_of_august_10_2010
I propose an implementation of "closures stored in properties used as
2010/8/11 Ilia Alshanetsky :
> I think that weak type-hinting defeats the whole purpose of the
> feature and I would rather not have it than have a non-obvious
> implementation.
>
> -1
>
I would like to point out an argument, posted in the "Typehints (was
Re: [PHP-DEV] Annoucing PHP 5.4 Alpha 1)"
On 11.08.2010, at 14:14, Richard Quadling wrote:
> So, the trunk keeps strict typing.
no .. a controversial patch like this should never have gotten into trunk
without a vote. the only place for this patch in the svn.php.net repo would be
a feature branch.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
m...@poo
On 11 August 2010 12:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> We need to remove strict typing from trunk before we release anything
> 'official' from php.net
I thought "trunk" is, to some degree, the "work in progress" /
"developers only", YMMV branch. Pretty much anything/everything in
there is subject to chan
On Tue Aug 10 07:42 PM, Josh Davis wrote:
> Derick's point was about consistency. The approach described in his
> mail is consistent with current syntax and mechanism(s). Current
> typehints do not apply any kind of conversion, so treating scalar
> hints the same way is consistent with the curre
That's not the issue on the table now.
We need to remove strict typing from trunk before we release anything
'official' from php.net, and the sooner the better. It's clearly not
something there's consensus over, almost the opposite.
We should discuss the merits of auto-converting type hints
On 11.08.2010, at 10:53, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> Facts:
>
> There are two facts that matter right now, imo:
>
> - There is no 5.4 or whatever other version as of now.
> - There is no RM either.
>
> I don't know why nobody cares (well I d
I think that weak type-hinting defeats the whole purpose of the
feature and I would rather not have it than have a non-obvious
implementation.
-1
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 01:47 11/08/2010, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>> For the record: I consider the curre
On 9 August 2010 12:32, Bostjan Skufca wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I am developing a small PHP extension and I ATM can't figure out how to get
> to $_SERVER['SCRIPT_FILENAME'] content while in PHP_RINIT or PHP_RSHUTDOWN
> function. Can someone please hint me with this one?
>
> Thanks,
> b.
>
If the scri
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Facts:
There are two facts that matter right now, imo:
- There is no 5.4 or whatever other version as of now.
- There is no RM either.
I don't know why nobody cares (well I do ;), but this is totally
insane. Do we ever learn? PHP6, the las
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 22:52 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> So, support the LTS versions of PHP, and let developers try out new features
> in a hassle free manner with these interim releases.
We can't "try out" changes in the core language. (individual developers
may of course provide patches, but not
86 matches
Mail list logo
