On 04/30/2013 05:17 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> If the asterisk (or some other character) offers and easier
> implementation path, whatever.
It doesn't. This is a fringe feature, as evidenced by the fact that you
are having a hard time convincing people that it is needed, and thus
shouldn't overl
Okay, that is a technical/implementation problem - and I'm not the guy who
can answer than question.
I was thinking there might be a mathematical (or other) operator that
doesn't work without something in front of it to operate on, and I chose
the ^ operator based on a wild guess, plus the followi
>
> one problem I have with this example is, that you usually (or at least
> often) don't have a "$task" object here.
I get what you're saying, but you do have a $task object if you want to use
the form-builder, because it relies on the object for state.
The same is true for most frameworks, and
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> I would caution against generalising use cases. Personally, ::class is
> something I can use multiple times a day. This I'm not so sure about.
>
> Your use case is not my use case, and vice versa. :)
>
What is your use-case then? DI perhaps?
On 04/30/2013 03:24 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> Are we really going to quibble about syntax? This adds nothing to this
> discussion. And as I explained earlier, the ^ operator is used for the sake
> of discussion only - if it's more practical to use another character for
> this operator, I don't ca
2013/5/1 Rasmus Schultz
> Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but the
> frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
>
> Take this example from the Symfony manual, for example:
>
>
> class Task
> {
> protected $task;
>
> pro
I've already demonstrated and explained what's wrong with strings.
"Weird indirection" is what we have in every mainstream framework right
now, where properties can be referenced only as strings - I gave a
real-world example of this, and demonstrated with a practical example how
the proposed featu
On 30 April 2013 16:15, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> At the risk of starting a separate discussion, the recently added
> ClassName::class constant provides a way to statically reference a class,
> which frankly has very few practical applications in comparison - the need
> to reference properties is us
Hi!
> Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but
> the frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
What's wrong with strings? Just because it doesn't have three levels of
objects on it, doesn't mean it's not OK to use it.
> We now have static property-references, w
I suggested something similar earlier:
http://marc.info/?t=13632784962&r=1&w=2
However, I withdrew that idea, because I came to the realization that, for
practical applications, you usually need the object-context coupled with
the member-reference to do anything really useful.
A form-input a
Hi!
> In C#, they had the intention to introduce the operator infoof(...) to
> get the reflection, not only of properties, but of virtually everything
> in the language. They abandoned the idea because it is really hard to do
> that for overloaded functions and they did not want to do all that wor
Any PHP dev who works with a mainstream framework does this daily, but the
frameworks rely on strings for property-names.
Take this example from the Symfony manual, for example:
class Task
{
protected $task;
protected $dueDate;
public functio
2013/4/30 Rasmus Lerdorf
> On 04/30/2013 01:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> I'm proposing we need a way to statically reference an object property -
> >> the object property itself, not it's value:
> >
> > You probably have use case for that, and it should be pretty easy to
> > write
On 04/30/2013 01:58 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'm proposing we need a way to statically reference an object property -
>> the object property itself, not it's value:
>
> You probably have use case for that, and it should be pretty easy to
> write a class that does that, but why it shoul
Hi!
> I'm proposing we need a way to statically reference an object property -
> the object property itself, not it's value:
You probably have use case for that, and it should be pretty easy to
write a class that does that, but why it should be in the language? It
certainly doesn't look like some
I don't think that's necessary - the point of being able to do this, is to
apply meta-programming techniques, so in most situations, what matters is
the ability to quickly create object/property-references... using them will
usually happen inside some service component, e.g. a form-helper or
object
Just an idea: why not also use ^ (or another operator) to access the
value? (maybe as an additional way to get/setValue)
$foo = ^$user->name;
echo 'Hello '.^$foo;
^$foo = 'Bob';
(using the same operator will conflict when you are accessing a
property of an object which is a PropertyReference)
-
That looks more pointless than evil to me - and no, I'm not suggesting
anything of that sort.
I'm proposing we need a way to statically reference an object property -
the object property itself, not it's value:
var_dump($user->name); // => 'Rasmus'
var_dump(^$user->name); // => PropertyR
hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> You may have a lib/object/chunk of code which raises exceptions, because
>> its developer thought some error is not recoverable; but when you use
>> it, you don't want to break your program's execution.
>
> That's why you have try/catc
Hi!
> It's a point of view, not something the language should enforce.
It is a point of view that any proper language should enforce. Languages
always enforce certain style, certain ideas and certain paradigm - be it
computer languages or natural languages. You can decide from now on in
your lang
2013/4/10 Frank Liepert :
> Hello internals,
>
> again an update on the RFC, see https://wiki.php.net/rfc/instance_counter:
>
> - added support for object as argument
> - added support for array argument (indexed array with class names)
> - added more code examples
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Ru
2013.04.26. 20:04, "Guilherme Capilé" ezt írta:
>
> Ola,
>
> my name is Guilherme Capilé, I'm a Brazilian developer and I'd like to
> contribute to the PHP-SRC. Right now, specifically to the PDO DBLIB
> (ext/pdo_dblib) extension. I've already submitted a bug, a patch and a
> pull request, a month
2013.04.30. 14:00, "Rasmus Schultz" ezt írta:
>
> >
> > Do you mean something yucky like http://pecl.php.net/propro?
> >
> >
> I don't know what that is, and there is no description on that page.
you can grasp the concept from the testcase:
http://git.php.net/?p=pecl/php/propro.git;a=blob_plain;f
2013/4/29 Stas Malyshev
> I agree. If your code can handle the problem, it should not throw. If it
> throws, the control should not go back there, since the code already
> gave up and declared it can not continue doing whatever it was doing.
> Exceptions are meant to handle exceptional situations
Hello, I realize testing and bug fixes are taking place for the latest beta
release, so I apologize in advance if everyone is fairly busy.
I was just checking on the status of pull request #267 (
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/267) addressing bug report #38917 (
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?i
On 30 April 2013 12:17, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi!
>
> Did I miss the discussions about this feature?
>
It was easy to miss, but a *very minimal* discussion happened towards the
beginning of April.
See "[RFC] Class instances counter" --
http://markmail.org/thread/o6vsxx6yj4ezh5f6
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Do you mean something yucky like http://pecl.php.net/propro?
>
>
I don't know what that is, and there is no description on that page.
> It's actually been meant to be used by extensions for internal properties,
>> but it might do the evil you're looking for.
>
>
Would you care to elaborate? W
> There are some weird questions that come up with that. For example, if an
> array item is an object that implements both __invoke() and __toString(),
> which should be fired? Is it a string? Or a callback? What if I pass a
> literal string "strlen", is that a callback, or a replacement?
You're r
ALeX,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, ALeX wrote:
> what about patch preg_replace to accept callbacks?
>
> example:
> preg_replace(array(
> "/pattern1(.*)/",
> "/pattern2(.*)/"
>),
>array(
>function ($pat) { ... } ,
> "replace"
> )
> , ... );
>
>
The
hi!
Did I miss the discussions about this feature?
Cheers,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Frank Liepert wrote:
> See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/instance_counter#vote
>
> Voting starts as of now and ends on 7th May, 2013.
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsu
See https://wiki.php.net/rfc/instance_counter#vote
Voting starts as of now and ends on 7th May, 2013.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 30 April 2013 01:45, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> The characters was an arbitrary choice, just for the sake of argument.
>
> I'm not a C programmer, so I don't have a patch - there is also no RFC, but
> there is general interest, I'd be happy to write one.
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Lars
32 matches
Mail list logo
