Le 17/09/2013 02:27, Alain Williams a écrit :
> I have done a bit of digging and suspect that this happens as part of
> readline initialisation.
+1
> phpinfo() reports: --without-readline but then:
Please... don't rely, for distro packaged PHP on configure option listed
in phpinfo report [1].
On 17 September 2013 02:27, Alain Williams wrote:
>
> I have done a bit of digging and suspect that this happens as part of
> readline initialisation.
That might very well be it.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.ne
On 16 September 2013 22:17, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> I've seen something similar on Debian; it might be a patch that
> your distro is shipping on top of PHP.
Nope, I reviewed the Debian PHP patches the other day.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsub
Hi!
Could someone grant me Zend karma, or apply attached patch to master, please?
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Mike
diff --git a/Zend/acinclude.m4 b/Zend/acinclude.m4
index fe3ab63..7fa8c99 100644
--- a/Zend/acinclude.m4
+++ b/Zend/acinclude.m4
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([LIBZEND_BISON_CHECK],[
# n
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:01:37PM +0200, Martin Jansen wrote:
> On 14.09.13 13:45, Alain Williams wrote:
> > ./myScript | less
> >
> > Since less is an interactive program it puts the terminal into 'raw' mode so
> > that it can read characters one at a time. However, when I do the above I
>
hi,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I notice there are several Withdrawn status RFCs by ircmaxell, aka Anthony
> Ferrara.
>
> I am aware that he withdrew all his RFCs when he "rage-quitted" (his words)
> internals. However, some of these RFCs are for features I
Hi all,
I notice there are several Withdrawn status RFCs by ircmaxell, aka
Anthony Ferrara.
I am aware that he withdrew all his RFCs when he "rage-quitted" (his
words) internals. However, some of these RFCs are for features I'd love
to see, particularly Structural Type Hinting.
Since he ha
> -Original Message-
> From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:z...@zend.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:52 PM
> To: 'Nikita Popov'; 'Stas Malyshev'
> Cc: 'PHP internals'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nikita Popov [mail
On 14.09.13 13:45, Alain Williams wrote:
> ./myScript | less
>
> Since less is an interactive program it puts the terminal into 'raw' mode so
> that it can read characters one at a time. However, when I do the above I find
> that the commands that I type to less are echoed back to me and not a
> -Original Message-
> From: Nikita Popov [mailto:nikita@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:03 PM
> To: Stas Malyshev
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Syntax for variadic functions
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
>
> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
>>
>> I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations which would translate
>> arrays (a la call_user_func_array()). To clarify, the following output is
>> what I'd expect:
>> function f(...$args) {
>> echo count($args
Hi internals!
I started the vote on the variadic functions RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/variadics#vote
Thanks,
Nikita
I've seen something similar on Debian; it might be a patch that
your distro is shipping on top of PHP.
Edward
Excerpts from Alain Williams's message of Sat Sep 14 04:45:41 -0700 2013:
> Hi,
>
> I am running a PHP script at the command line and piping the output through
> less:
>
> ./myScri
>
>
> I'd like to go forward with voting on this. Are there any issues that still
> need to be resolved?
>
> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations which would translate
arrays (a la call_user_func_array()). To c
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
>
>> I'd like to go forward with voting on this. Are there any issues that
>> still
>> need to be resolved?
>>
>> Assuming the RFC as-is represents the current state, I'm +1 on all of it.
>
> I'm not a fan of some of the proposed alterations wh
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:01:02 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 10 September 2013 13:29, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 28 August 2013 08:14, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 27 August 2013 23:17, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
I think it's generally a good idea, but I have some concerns:
...
Fixed. The input
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:44:16PM +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> > Note that most of these things don't refer to PHP directly. i.e.
> > encryption between user and PHP is usually done by the web server.
> > Encryption between PHP and databases by database libraries. If
> > applications built on t
> PHP itself doesn't do much crypto stuff. We rely mostly on libs like
> openssl etc. and provide hashing algorithms which follow the
> specifications. If the specifications are bad this is a global non-PHP
> issue.
That's all true, of course. But there are still places where new patches to
the un
Hi!
This is the (official) RFC thread for the patch proposed in
http://php.markmail.org/message/7rn4mbwkbytqa3ig
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/keywords_as_identifiers
Any feedback about the RFC or the implementation?
Bob Weinand
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:56:58PM +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:56 +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> > In the light of the recent scandal of the NSA (& others) attacking
> > encryption
> > would it be a good idea to see if we can get an audit of all the security
> > rela
hi Bob!
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Bob Weinand wrote:
> Am 14.09.2013 um 23:21 schrieb "Pierre Joye" :
>
> I think we need a RFC for this non trivial change (from a user land point
> of view and to change the engine). Do you know how to proceed to create one?
>
>
> I now created the RFC:
>
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:56 +0100, Alain Williams wrote:
> In the light of the recent scandal of the NSA (& others) attacking encryption
> would it be a good idea to see if we can get an audit of all the security
> related code in PHP ? It would do a bit to help boost confidence in PHP - and
> migh
In the light of the recent scandal of the NSA (& others) attacking encryption
would it be a good idea to see if we can get an audit of all the security
related code in PHP ? It would do a bit to help boost confidence in PHP - and
might even find something (although I hope not).
What I am thinking
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> On 16 September 2013 03:36, David Soria Parra wrote:
>> > We have recenty discussed a lot of new language features and RFC while
>> our
>> > github pull requests are conti
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 03:36, David Soria Parra wrote:
> > We have recenty discussed a lot of new language features and RFC while
> our
> > github pull requests are continously growing without getting pulled. We
> > have 74 open pull reques
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 09:08 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 03:36, David Soria Parra wrote:
> > We have recenty discussed a lot of new language features and RFC while our
> > github pull requests are continously growing without getting pulled. We
> > have 74 open pull request.
In the past week we've been "hammered" with 18 new pull requests, which I'm
happy with (especially with the other internals discussions). But now the
hard reviewing work begins, any help would be welcomed.
Thank you David Soria Parra for the merges and cleanup, and thank you
Nikita Popov for the m
>
> How to actually get karma to manage those pull request in github?
>
>
I know what you mean. I've been sitting on a patch I did for an RFC for
awhile now because I don't have karma to post it. I know I could just add
to the pull request queue but I'd much rather put a few more together first
s
Hi all!
On 10 September 2013 13:29, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 28 August 2013 08:14, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> On 27 August 2013 23:17, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>
>>> I think it's generally a good idea, but I have some concerns:
> ...
> Fixed. The input stream is reusable *and* may be used JIT.
>
On 16 September 2013 03:36, David Soria Parra wrote:
> We have recenty discussed a lot of new language features and RFC while our
> github pull requests are continously growing without getting pulled. We
> have 74 open pull request.
>
> So this is a clal for participation in helping to wingle thos
30 matches
Mail list logo
