On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:01 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> I won't enter on this thread of "Who can vote", but I'll get around it
> during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
> individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejec
Hi!
This attitude only makes me lose a lot of time answering questions
instead of focusing on actual RFC stability. I want to propose
something stable, I do not want to be pressured about should the RFC
exist or not. It only delays the real voting results. What I can do to
address this?
I woul
Hi!
tools' project leaders. By denying the voice of them is almost the
same as telling there's meritocracy only if you contribute with the
language internals.
Nobody's "denying voice" to anybody. Anybody who's interested can feel
free to come to the list and bring forward their arguments and
On 11/09/2011 07:01 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
> My short version of this entire email is very simple question. Is PHP
> meritocracy based?
It is.
> I want to highlight another RFC where I saw the before mentioned
> meritocracy fallen into the cracks.
> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsynt
Hi internals,
I won't enter on this thread of "Who can vote", but I'll get around it
during the exposure of my point of view. I may also point to
individual RFCs that were either accepted/rejected or it's still
pending. It's a long email, so take a seat and read carefully. I have
no means to hurt
Hi,
@RDohms
What you said is pretty valid. If you're not going to use it, you vote
against it?
You may not use it, but many others can. It's a true state.
@Anthony
I already heard your points many times. I know you're against it.
I also know the voting should be reset, but before the reset, I w
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rafael Dohms
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> I am not PSR compliant in either autoloader implementation or class
> implementation. The reason is that over time I have
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rafael Dohms wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> You sort of prove my point here, as you actually have your own
> autoloader, which in case you are PSR compliant, you would not need,
> you can still use your bootstrap but no longer
Whether you are purchasing a new subscription, renewing an old one, or
advertising with us all purchases allow you to choose one of many wonderful
holiday gifts.
It's our way of thanking you for your business.
Visit our Holiday Special Page and look around. There are some great gifts for
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Rafael
>
>> This makes life as a PHP developer much easier and having the standard>
>> "valued" by PHP by having a SplClassLoader that allows any library to> not
>> need to implement a autolaoder if no framework is present allows> for much
Hi!
What I should have said is that in my eyes - as outlined in my other replies -
I don't see any compelling reasons why one should distinguish between php-src
contributors and the others.
Because the premise here that PHP contributors understand PHP, it's
ideas, limitations, history, goals,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:55 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> Thanks.
> It's your option and I won't fight. But it seems my proposal is not yet
> 100%.
> Some things I have either identified or people have reported.
>
> 1- Remove ->register() and ->
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be
>> determined
>> through discussion before voting even starts.
> It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote is to
> see if the feature is needed/d
Hi!
To summarize: The technical viability of a feature should always be determined
through discussion before voting even starts.
It doesn't matter too much when it happens, as the purpose of the vote
is to see if the feature is needed/desired in the form that is proposed.
That doesn't mean i
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> - The core devs usually know the internal parts better than the others
> contributors, so they can weight the changes better on the technical parts
> (opening a can of worms...).
I think you are hitting another issue with voting here that is n
Hi!
- I think it's too late in PHP 5.4's release cycle to be proposing
anything for 5.4.
Not talking about the merits of the loader, if it comes into 5.4, that
won't be 5.4.0. Unless we discover some very bad problem, 5.4 is going
into RC tomorrow, which means I will be extremely reluctant t
I think that this isn't a good idea. The main reason for a [php-src]
> vs. [php-doc et al.] distinction is that the php-src guys will be the
> ones maintaining the code. (At least from what I heard this is the
> main point.)
I have more argument than that, maybe there are others also:
- The core
On 9 November 2011 22:44, Peter Cowburn wrote:
> I am removing my vote due to a particularly annoying aspect of this
> whole RFC/voting structure: the RFC is still in flux!
This is one of the reasons why I've voted -1: there's no way an RFC
should be changing this much (or at all, really) while v
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:24:33 +0100, Nikita Popov
wrote:
Hi Miroslav!
Yes, the ternary patch fixes that problem too :)
Nikita
Nice, thank all participants very much, Arnaud especially, very helpful
patch.
Maybe string case can be mentioned in the Zend/micro_bench.php as array
micro b
Rafael
> This makes life as a PHP developer much easier and having the standard>
> "valued" by PHP by having a SplClassLoader that allows any library to> not
> need to implement a autolaoder if no framework is present allows> for much
> nicer "plug and play" interaction of libraries, less work
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Will Fitch wrote:
> ...
> I have to say, I've never heard the argument, "man, if there's one
> thing I'd like to standardize in PHP, it'd definitely be autoloading
> classes." No, indeed I believe this is a group of frameworks trying
> to implement a standard into
Hi Miroslav!
Yes, the ternary patch fixes that problem too :)
Nikita
2011/11/9 Miroslav Kubelík :
> On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
>> improved.
>> I'm re-posting it for discussion before eventually
I just want to comment on one of the points:
> Maybe we could define different type of votes (language syntax change, adding
> new feature/extensions, etc.) and define the who can vote for each of those.
> * This could be a good middle-ground between allowing qa/documentation/web
> people to vote
Hi guys,
I am removing my vote due to a particularly annoying aspect of this
whole RFC/voting structure: the RFC is still in flux!
How on earth are we supposed to be able to vote yay/nay on something
if that something keeps changing, or is very poorly defined? I request
that the RFC itself be dis
Hi Miroslav & Arnaud,
On 09/11/11 12:51, Miroslav Kubelík wrote:
On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
improved.
I'm re-posting it for discussion before eventually commiting it.
The ternary operator always copies
On 09/11/11 11:24, Christian Kaps wrote:
Hi,
Hi Christian :-),
I'm fine with the most of the implementation. But I have some
suggestions to optimize it.
1. The interface should be named SplClassLoader and the register and
unregister methods should be removed.
It should be possible to de
On 08/11/11 18:39, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:28 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
Because there's no need to bring to C a single foreach.
Also, if you re-read the RFC, you'll see that SplClassLoader is
extendable for personalized developer needs, such as an addAll or an
A
On 10/14/2011 10:08 PM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
Hi,
I've already posted this patch and it has since been reviewed and
improved.
I'm re-posting it for discussion before eventually commiting it.
The ternary operator always copies its second or third operand, which is
very
slow compared to an
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
> representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
> defining that-
> Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
> https://wiki.php.net/r
Hi,
I'm fine with the most of the implementation. But I have some
suggestions to optimize it.
1. The interface should be named SplClassLoader and the register and
unregister methods should be removed.
It should be possible to define class loader implementations without
registering them as
Hi:
I am writing a page to describe Zend MM,
https://wiki.php.net/internals/zend_mm
there is no doc about this before, I have to read the src codes,
so there might be some wrong, if you find some , plz feel free to
correct it.
thanks
--
Laruence Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/
--
2011/11/8 guilhermebla...@gmail.com :
> Ok... I promised to complete the RFC and here I am.
>
> I wrapped the entire idea, PHP implementation of what I'm proposing all in
> RFC.
> If you're interested, feel free to review the document, highlight if I
> missed something and update/add your votes.
>
Hi.
As it was brought up recently that who can vote, and how are the community
representatives granted with voting rights, I created an RFC draft for
defining that-
Please feel free to discuss and extend it.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting_who
ps: it is really just a draft put together in like 5
33 matches
Mail list logo
