Hi:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 06:40:23PM +0100, Johannes Schlter wrote:
> public bar() {
Not that my vote really counts, but -1. Doing so would eliminate the
helpful ability to grep source code for 'function bar'.
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O
I love it. This should get implemented.
On 11/25/2010 4:52 PM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've been taking another look at iterators lately, and compiled trunk and
started experimenting with traits. I also looked at an old mail from Marcus
regarding iterator_apply, and find myself wonde
@Johannes:
The T_STRING token never contains "$", AFAIK all identifiers starting with
"$" are instead classed as T_VARIABLE tokens.
So you'd search for the visibility modifier (+ static, etc.) + T_STRING for
methods, and visibility (+ static) + T_VARIABLE for properties.
Martin
2010/11/27 Johan
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 23:14 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> [ T_PUBLIC | T_PROTECTED | T_PRIVATE | T_STATIC | T_ABSTRACT ] { & } T_STRING
> "(" param_list ")" { "{" statement_ist "}" }
I forgot T_FINAL there.
johannes
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 22:58 +0100, Mike Van Riel wrote:
> With this patch I will loose this recognition point and the first
> solution that comes to mind is to search for () or arguments. This
> sounds rather hackish to me, might I be missing a solution?
The rule is something like
[ T_PUBLIC
On 27 nov 2010, at 18:40, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
Hi,
every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the
"function"
keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it is
not
needed by the par
+1 for PHP 7.0. :)
Stuff like this accumulating in trunk kinda makes it more and more
something else than minor release..
--Jani
27.11.2010 19:40, Johannes Schlüter kirjoitti:
Hi,
every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
keyword between my visibility modifier
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter
> Hi,
>
> every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
> keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
> declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it is not
> needed by the parser to prevent confli
2010/11/27 Philip Olson
> Sorry for moving offtopic, but if the PHP syntax is going to change then we
> should revisit other proposals that add/change syntax. For example, I think
> the short syntax for arrays was declined [from 5.3] mainly because it
> introduced a new syntax at a time we wanted
+1 to being able to omit the function keyword.
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter :
> Hi,
>
> every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
> keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
> declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it
Sorry for moving offtopic, but if the PHP syntax is going to change then we
should revisit other proposals that add/change syntax. For example, I think the
short syntax for arrays was declined [from 5.3] mainly because it introduced a
new syntax at a time we wanted to preserve BC:
- http://wik
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 19:30 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> +1 if "While technically possible this RFC suggests that the following
> shall NOT be valid for keeping the code readable " also means that the
> patch implements it as well (force the function visibility property
> usage).
The patch follows
+1, has crossed my mind before =)
"Johannes "Schlüter"" wrote in message
news:1290879624.7033.826.ca...@guybrush...
Hi,
every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
declaration. I don't think it
+1 if "While technically possible this RFC suggests that the following
shall NOT be valid for keeping the code readable " also means that the
patch implements it as well (force the function visibility property
usage).
2010/11/27 Pierrick Charron :
> +1
>
> 2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter
>
>> Hi,
>>
+1
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter
> Hi,
>
> every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
> keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
> declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it is not
> needed by the parser to prevent co
As long as a modifier (public|private|protected) is still required, +1.
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter :
> Hi,
>
> every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
> keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
> declaration. I don't think it is requir
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter
> Without T_FUNCTION token. In my opinion an access modifier /public,
> private protected, static, final) should still be required for keeping
> readability.
>
> RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function
> Patch: http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_optional
2010/11/27 Johannes Schlüter :
> RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function
> Patch: http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_optional_t_function.diff
+1, I've missed being able to skip the function keyword for a while now.
--
regards,
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
ka...@php.net
--
PHP Internals
Am 27.11.2010 18:40, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> RFC: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-t-function
> Patch: http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_optional_t_function.diff
+1
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
Hi,
every now and then while writing classes I forget to add the "function"
keyword between my visibility modifier and the method name in a class
declaration. I don't think it is required for readability and it is not
needed by the parser to prevent conflicts, I therefore propose the
following RFC
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 11:58 -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > > 3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
> > > main motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perceptio
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
> On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > 3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
>> > main motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception am
Hi,
2010/11/26 Felipe Pena
> 2010/11/26 Johannes Schlüter
>
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 17:36 -0200, Felipe Pena wrote:
>> > var_dump(new foo()->bar()->x); // string(3) "PHP"
>>
>> It has some readability issues. One might assume it is
>>
>>new (foo()->bar()->x)
>>
>> not
>>
>>(new foo())->
On 2010-11-26, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > 3. The motivation to skip 6 doesn't stem from marketing at all. The
> > main motivation is that there's a VERY concrete perception amongst
> > many users about what PHP 6 is.
>
> Leaving the very small c
Herman Radtke wrote:
The DVCS migration path would not have to be as radical as the path
from cvs to svn. A single section of the overall svn repoistory can
be migrated to a DVCS. This pilot repo would serve two purposes:
determine if that DVCS is the correct choice and allow for a more
gradual
The DVCS migration path would not have to be as radical as the path
from cvs to svn. A single section of the overall svn repoistory can
be migrated to a DVCS. This pilot repo would serve two purposes:
determine if that DVCS is the correct choice and allow for a more
gradual learning curve.
Pytho
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 03:50 -0800, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> tl;dr the PHP developers have a false belief in not breaking backwards
> compatibility in minor releases.
Besides from what Pierre said: There is a difference between the
language and the function library. The change in the language from
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am reading the 5.4 vs 7.0 debate. And, here's something I really
> need to follow up on: "We should reserve major versions for BC breaks.
> Just like we've always done". If that's what you've always done then
> it's not PHP I spen
Hi,
I am reading the 5.4 vs 7.0 debate. And, here's something I really
need to follow up on: "We should reserve major versions for BC breaks.
Just like we've always done". If that's what you've always done then
it's not PHP I spent practically every awake minute in the last seven
or so years.
If
29 matches
Mail list logo
