Hi,
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and
>> start to discuss the actual impact of each feature.
>>
>
> I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because
Am 11.05.2011 00:28, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
- Entities with knowledge about its persistence information
That must be something I simply have no knowledge about. But isn't it
just a theoretical difference, because in practice, the "code" being
annotations or PHP-Code is kept within t
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
So, please stop saying "no" to every feature request that comes in and
start to discuss the actual impact of each feature.
I think that MY only problem with you 'adding annotations because it is missing'
is simply that I've already been doing it for years - jus
On May 10, 2011, at 21:01, Gabriel Sosa wrote:
> I'm basically using lynx to convert some html into plain text
>
> basically replicating the following command:
>
> *lynx -pseudo_inlines=off -hiddenlinks=merge -reload -cache=0 -notitle
> -force_html -dump -nocolor -stdin*
>
> I've been looking
I'm basically using lynx to convert some html into plain text
basically replicating the following command:
*lynx -pseudo_inlines=off -hiddenlinks=merge -reload -cache=0 -notitle
-force_html -dump -nocolor -stdin*
I've been looking but I didn't find any other library capable to do
the same with "
On 05/10/2011 08:42 PM, Gabriel Sosa wrote:
hello everyone!
I'm trying to gain some speed by moving a function from PHP legacy
code to C and making an extension. I'm trying to call *lynx* from the
command line since their C api isn't something soo nice likely to use
it as any other libXX
If it
hello everyone!
I'm trying to gain some speed by moving a function from PHP legacy
code to C and making an extension. I'm trying to call *lynx* from the
command line since their C api isn't something soo nice likely to use
it as any other libXX
Currently in PHP I'm doing a system call by using *p
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:27 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I find it funny that you, Sebastian and others who are supporting docblocks
> over annotations didn't found the time to do it, but you always bring this
> up.
http://pecl.php.net/package/docblock exists. I never used it, but either
it is c
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 20:21 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> creating an official EBNF would solve this problem, among others as well.
> http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=129387252319019
>
> patches welcome ;)
A formal syntax description might help with highligting, not with all
assisting features
Not trying to be harsh, but I'm not bloating my PHP example.
That's the actual way Doctrine supports Metadata information. I can explain why.
Conceptually, an architectural design of an entity should not know
anything about its persistence information.
By that means, we cannot for example implemen
Am 10.05.2011 17:07, schrieb guilhermebla...@gmail.com:
Is that still simple?
You bloated the php example unnecessarily. This contains the same
information as your Annotations example, which to me, is very similar.
http://pastie.org/1886774
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing
Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
sorry my FUD counter just overflowed with your last comment.
Sorry you feel that way, but obviously there are more people with my view that
we simply do not agree on IF annotation should be implemented. I'm a lot more
comfortable with something that works WITH what we alrea
On 05/10/2011 12:37 PM, Drak wrote:
PS - sorry to say this but from the other thread, all this talk of
ecosystems is quite strange and full of FUD. The PHP eco-system
depends on PHP and exists only because of PHP, not the other way
round. If PHP adds a new syntax or new functions, the IDEs h
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
> I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
> can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
>
> I'll
On 05/10/2011 12:49 PM, Drak wrote:
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the
opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at
all.
It's unrelated to this thread but, what is the status of me
On 11 May 2011 01:30, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> One suggestion. Be very careful about anything that requires changes in the
> opcode caches out there. Such changes will be very slow in coming, if at
> all.
It's unrelated to this thread but, what is the status of merging APC
into the PHP core? I re
On 05/10/2011 12:35 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
I'll keep the old one for
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
>>
>>> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
>>> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
>>> irc, where discussions and de
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>
>> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
>> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
>> irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
>> different
>> priorities an
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:31 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
> I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
> can chat until reach some standardization
On 10 May 2011 21:42, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>> Annotations cannot be considered bloat because are being used
>> increasingly everywhere that is a clear indication that they are
>> required as part of the PHP core as much as many of the Spl classes.
>> It should be clear by now that the PH
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
I'll keep the old one for history purposes. It seems that none from
core php devs acc
bump
is this done?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> 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 h
Hi all,
Based on an extensive chat with Matthew, I think we reached some consensus.
I'll write another RFC related to Annotations in docblocks, then we
can chat until reach some standardization and availability.
Regards,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM, dukeofgaming wrote:
>>
>>
>> so the probl
>
>
> so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
> development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
> irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
> different
> priorities and expectations about the PHP language than the core devs.
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> --bcaec51a7af89cba6304a2f01d01
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson wrote:
>
> > May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> >
> > > A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
Hi,
I would like to ask if the following backtrace contains enough
information to identify the bug ? Perhaps someone may identify from the
backtrace a PHP function/code that causes the segfault and I am able to
provide more info in a bug report ?
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation faul
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Christopher Jones wrote:
>
>> The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
>>> engine should we built around what IDE supports?
>>>
>>
>> IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
>> code caches, d
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Mike Robinson wrote:
> May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>
> > A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
> > purposes.
>
> +1, FWIW.
>
>
extending the Reflection::getDocComment to support retrieving the docblock
comment as an a
Christopher Jones wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and even
current technology t
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Christopher Jones <
christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
>
> The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
>> engine should we built around what IDE supports?
>>
>
> IDEs are part of the PHP eco
May-10-11 11:57 AM Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> A native docblock annotation parser would much better suit our
> purposes.
+1, FWIW.
> So, basically, we're in a situation where there's no consensus on
> whether the feature is needed or what the approach should be, and
> people pointing fing
On 05/10/2011 05:28 AM, Martin Scotta wrote:
The editor argument is out of place do you really think that the
engine should we built around what IDE supports?
IDEs are part of the PHP ecosystem, just as much as frameworks, op
code caches, documentation, bug reports, maintenance issues and ev
Drak wrote:
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caine wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
> across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
> already, and phpeclipse simply picks it up and runs
On 10 May 2011 21:55, Lester Caine wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Thank you Matthew. That was the part of the 'problem' I was not getting
> across very well. The bulk of my existing code base has this documentation
> already, and phpeclipse simply picks it up and runs with it ...
> incl
On 2011-05-10, "guilhermebla...@gmail.com" wrote:
> There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks:
> - Code with and without comments should act the same.
Why?
Would you expect phpDocumentor to work without docblocks? No.
Would you expect to know parameter types and
Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
> I think that's reason enough to pan the feature for 5.4.
Agreed.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals - PH
Am 10.05.2011 17:57, schrieb Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
> Just because developers are using annotations does not necessarily mean
> we need a new syntax.
Exactly the point I tried to make earlier -- just more to the point.
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consulta
On May 10, 2011, at 18:57, "Matthew Weier O'Phinney"
wrote:
> With annotations, my main issue, which I voiced early (and others did as
> well), is that we can already do much of what the RFC proposes by
> parsing annotations in docblocks. In fact, adding the support
> potentially creates more w
Hi Matthew,
There's just one reason that it cannot be possible to do inside docblocks:
- Code with and without comments should act the same.
Also, no matter if it's inside docblocks or not, we'd still have a new
syntax. No matter what you do. Even a key => value is a new syntax.
But it seems that
Hi!
Well, there is the impact, but seriously, do that many people will use
it in production? I certainly will not, but on the DEV and on my local
development machine it will be enabled period.
Everybody would be using that in production. Production is where the
danger is, nobody would break i
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Guilherme often raises ZF's server classes as poster children for why
annotations support is needed. However, I'd like to note that I don't
feel this way at all. In fact, annotations support would create_more_
work for us. Why? Because now we'd need both our docbloc
On 2011-05-10, Drak wrote:
> --0016e6db295ac0d29504a2e4229c
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 10 May 2011 09:27, Mike Willbanks wrote:
>
> > I would argue that the introduction of this into the core is adding
> > more feature bloat into the language that is not quite needed at
> >
On 2011-05-10, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> --0016e657b06a1ac32a04a2e91661
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann
> wrote:
>
> > Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> > > That is how open source works.
> >
> > Traits is a perfect examp
On Mon May 9 07:29 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Andi,
>
> Sorry, but I mentioned on other thread that RFC is outdated.
> I just finished an update to it bringing to recent implementation. The
> idea is to get the "big picture" here, I may have left from previous
> RFC, but if I did
Lars Schultz wrote:
Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta:
The editor argument is out of place
do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE
supports?
At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this
feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is
On Tue May 10 11:07 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm not putting traits support inclusion on risk. I'm a string +1 to
> it.
> All I want is that you stop giving stupid arguments to be against the
> patch instead of giving *real* relevant arguments.
>
Complexity:
http://en.wikipe
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
With Doctrine Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885284
With my proposal:http://pastie.org/1885294
Without Annotations:http://pastie.org/1885252
Is that still simple?
But exactly what is wrong with the first one. It does not require getting a book
out to work out wh
Hi,
You all think that mapping something can always be abstracted into a
few lines like the one you presented.
Well, in certain cases your idea is valid. I'd then point you an
Entity mapping of Doctrine 2 with and without Annotations, so you can
imagine how much it can abstract:
With Doctrine Ann
2011/5/10 Ferenc Kovacs :
>
>
>>
>> The Tainted Variable RFC - https://wiki.php.net/rfc/taint - personally
>> I would prefer that feature right now over any new feature, because it
>> gives the ability to check for insecure variable handling and make
>> sure you don't miss something. A major securi
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I also have a personal problem with code that needs to introspect on
every web request in order to run. But that is likely because I am old
and gray and used to stare sceptically at the assembly output of the
first C compilers to see if I could come up with an alternative th
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:14 +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com
wrote:
I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think.
And
I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process
itself.
The actual prop
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:26PM +0200, christian.k...@mohiva.com wrote:
> I'm a userland developer, reading the list since two years I think. And
> I must say I'm totally frustrated about the developing process itself.
>
> The actual proposal process is always the same:
>
> 1. Someone propos
Hi,
On 2011.05.10. 15:13, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
<...>
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and on
irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have different
priorities and expectations
Am 10.05.2011 14:47, schrieb Martin Scotta:
Annotated code integrates best with library/frameworks without the need to
"extends" or "implements".
Without annotation you will need to extend some class or to implement some
interface. That means more code to write, more chances to shoot you foot.
Um
On Tue, 10 May 2011 15:13:32 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
so the problem is, that the userland is under-represented in the
development, because they usually not present on the mailing list and
on
irc, where discussions and decisions happen, and they usually have
different
priorities and expectat
Am 10.05.2011 14:28, schrieb Martin Scotta:
The editor argument is out of place
do you really think that the engine should we built around what IDE
supports?
At least the much quoted user-base would welcome syntax-support for this
feature, wouldn't you agree? If support is already there, that'
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Hello Internals!
>
> Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
> development and feature requests and the politics going on in
> internals.
>
> Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it is a need to
> ta
Martin Scotta
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Lars Schultz wrote:
> Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine
>>> wrote:
>>>
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
>>
>>> To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could
>>>
>>> anyone please explain the advantages of having "passive
Hello Internals!
Here is a point of view from an active user land developer on PHP
development and feature requests and the politics going on in
internals.
Right now I think PHP has reached a milestone, where it is a need to
take a break from large feature developing, witch takes a lot of time
an
On 10 May 2011, at 12:04, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> performance problems, playing the bloated card, etc.), but they were
> overwhelmed by the positive feedback and the buzz about what can be further
> improved, etc.
> it seems that annotations lacked the critical mass when it was proposed. :(
From m
On 10 May 2011 15:25, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
>> That is how open source works.
>
> Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
> specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
> feature is useful.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> > That is how open source works.
>
> Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
> specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
> featu
Am 09.05.2011 21:33, schrieb Stefan Marr:
> That is how open source works.
Traits is a perfect example, indeed: you came to the list with a clear
specification of the feature as well as arguments for why you think the
feature is useful. Moreover, you provided tests that reflected the
specifica
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
> > regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> > general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> > frameworks use them (meaning that not only
Am 09.05.2011 18:55, schrieb Marcelo Gornstein:
> regarding the annotations stuff: it seems the php community (in
> general) really wants annotations. lots of important and widely used
> frameworks use them (meaning that not only the plain php users have a
> use for this feature, but also the users
On 05/10/2011 01:10 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
To explain what I mean, I'll use the example provided in the RFC. Could
anyone please explain the advantages of having "passive" annotations over
"active" PHP Code.
I think your example shows very well
Am 10.05.2011 10:10, schrieb Jordi Boggiano:
I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and
performance of the parsing. At the moment everyone has to cache the
stuff because hitting the tokenizer every time is quite expensive.
If implemented within PHP the existing opcode-caches c
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Lars Schultz
wrote:
> What is the goal of having Annotations embedded in PHP? To nail down a
> common syntax? To provide an interface for meta-information on a class?
I think the main reasons are standardization of the syntax and
performance of the parsing. At th
Am 10.05.2011 09:44, schrieb Ferenc Kovacs:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
*IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations.
And the argument
that 'You don'
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Chad Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> > *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
>
> For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations.
>
> > And the argument
> > that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> *IS* it clear by now that the majority of users want this?
For what it's worth, I still oppose Annotations.
> And the argument
> that 'You don't have to use it' does not wash either since once it has been
> pushed in, some of the libraries w
73 matches
Mail list logo
