Hi Guilherme,
Guilherme Blanco wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
Comments goes inline.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Pierrick Charron wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry S
Hello Stas,
I agree, using an array like syntax would make the intent much clearer
in the context of PHP, the syntax is just slightly more verbose:
[JoinTable(array(
"name" => "users_phonenumbers",
"joinColumns" => array(
array("name" => "user_id", "referendedColumnName" => "id"),
),
Hi!
[JoinTable(
name="users_phonenumbers",
joinColumns=array(
[JoinColumn(name="user_id", referencedColumnName="id")]
),
inverseJoinColumns=array(
[JoinColumn(name="phonenumber_id", referencedColumnName="id",
unique=true)]
)
)]
[Validation([Email(checkMX
Hi!
I would suggest to go forward with this decision partially (without
callback and without zval** instead of zval*)
Actually, if we have the information in the data structures, wouldn't it
be pretty easy for xdebug (or any other extension), while intercepting
function entrance (which every
Hi Johannes,
Comments inline.
2010/9/8 Johannes Schlüter :
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:44 -0300, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
>> >>> 2) I suppose that usage of annotation would be quite rare case. I don't
>> >>> think it make sense to extend each op_array, property and class with
>> >>> additio
Hi,
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:44 -0300, Guilherme Blanco wrote:
> >>> 2) I suppose that usage of annotation would be quite rare case. I don't
> >>> think it make sense to extend each op_array, property and class with
> >>> additional "annotations" field. I think it's possible to have a separate
> >
Hi Dmitry,
Comments goes inline.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>
>
> Pierrick Charron wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
>> give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
>>
>> 2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov :
>>>
>>> Hi
Pierrick Charron wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov :
Hi Pierrick,
I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks interesting
and might be useful in some areas
Hi Dmitry,
First thanks for having a look at the patch and taking some time to
give your feedback ! It's much appreciated
2010/9/8 Dmitry Stogov :
> Hi Pierrick,
>
> I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks interesting
> and might be useful in some areas, but I see several si
Hi Derick,
We had a long discussion on RFC and hear you can see the summary of my
opinion:
I think removing the "strict" type hinting (reverting semantic back to
5.3), but keeping the new syntax and reflection API is a good decision.
However I definitely against of "delegation" of type-hint
Hi Pierrick,
I've taken just a quick look into concept and patch. It looks
interesting and might be useful in some areas, but I see several
significant problems:
1) Have you thought about compatibility with opcode caches? In case I
understood properly, you store annotation as a HashTable of
11 matches
Mail list logo
