Hello,
2013/10/7 Anatol Belski
> Hi,
>
> as one could already have seen, the links to the extension DLLs has been
> integrated into the PECL website. Basically the builds done until now are
> shown. Together with the automatic builds this brings automatic updates
> for every new release built fo
On 08/10/13 09:01, Rowan Collins wrote:
>
> (2) Don't capture arguments in the trace of an exception, similar to
> debug_backtrace with DEBUG_BACKTRACE_IGNORE_ARGS set. This would
> technically be a BC break, but I'm not sure how much real code would
> care. It's impossible to reconstruct details o
Hi All,
A while ago, I discovered the awkward fact that PHP exceptions can only
sometimes be serialized, because they contain a stack trace which might
involve non-serializable objects.
In my case, one of the function calls in the trace happened to have been
passed a SimpleXMLElement as an a
On 07/10/2013 18:19, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
>> You can't efficiently model an HTTP request with associative
arrays. Period.
> The fact is that for 99% of use cases, yes you can, and developers
> happily do so.
Leaky abstraction is leaky. If this is truly an efficient model of the
HTTP request t
>> You can't efficiently model an HTTP request with associative arrays.
Period.
> The fact is that for 99% of use cases, yes you can, and developers
> happily do so.
Leaky abstraction is leaky. If this is truly an efficient model of the HTTP
request then why do we fragment it out into $_SERVER an
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 15:55 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> The observation that even a small patch has an impact, or can have an
>> impact is valid. But then to talk about adoption time turns your
>> reasoning a bit circular: adoption does
Daniel Lowrey wrote (on 02/10/2013):
Something like the following would be an infinitely superior solution:
interface HttpRequest {
While having a quick look for userland parsing functions earlier, I came
upon the PECL http extension, which includes this all-singing object:
http://www.php.n
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 15:55 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
> The observation that even a small patch has an impact, or can have an
> impact is valid. But then to talk about adoption time turns your
> reasoning a bit circular: adoption does take time, if we want for
> adoption to take place then the
Hi All,
Johannes Schlüter wrote (on 07/10/2013):
Why replace something? Are there flaws which can't be fixed? Adding too
many ways to do the same thing is confusing for everybody. If you want
it "object oriented" or such frameworks do great things. The language
should offer a good foundation. (I
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 11:29 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
>> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7
>
> The option to postpone for PHP 5.7 implies that t
On 10/07/2013 12:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 08:38 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7, then a
few people joined in the discussion and I could
On 10/06/2013 11:29 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7
The option to postpone for PHP 5.7 implies that there is already a
deadline for PHP 5.6. Is there?
--
PHP Intern
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> Oh and talking about "stable platform". Current bug count: 3891
And most of them are not in the language per se but in extensions or
some totally ignored (see #65486 for what where you are in charge :).
Now, ranting on IRC is all good a
On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 08:38 +0100, Joe Watkins wrote:
> I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
> recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7, then a
> few people joined in the discussion and I couldn't really argue with
> their reasoning.
Whe
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:38 +0200, Christian Stadler wrote:
> Actually I like the idea of having an API to handle everything important
> for the HTTP-request and respectively for the response.
>
> e. g.:
> HTTPRequest::getFormData(...), which could possibly be aliased by
> HTTPRequest::getPOSTData
On 7 October 2013 11:13, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
> Morning Chaps,
>
> On the advice of many, I have restarted the vote, sorry for the
> inconvenience/confusion ...
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes#voting (re-link, for the lazy)
The voting options changed from choosing a version (
On 10/07/2013 10:49 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 10/07/2013 10:46 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until
Since the feedback so far was few but positive, I'll advance the RFC to
the next stage. Apart from this, any feedback is still welcome.
Thanks and Regards, Gordon
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi,
as one could already have seen, the links to the extension DLLs has been
integrated into the PECL website. Basically the builds done until now are
shown. Together with the automatic builds this brings automatic updates
for every new release built for windows. A couple of notes I'd like to
brin
On 10/07/2013 10:46 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Cheers
The "Include in PHP 5.7"
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Chaps,
>
> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
>
> Cheers
>
The "Include in PHP 5.7" voting option, does this mean that we
Hi all,
Vote period is ended and the result was
0 Generate strong salt by default
12 Generate E_NOTICE error
2 Keep current behavior (Use weak hash)
I'll prepare patch for it later.
Thank you.
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi
On 10/07/2013 08:48 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
5.6 remains an option ...
I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7, then a few
people joined
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> 5.6 remains an option ...
>
> I brought it up in IRC the other day and someone, I forget who, but
> recognized them at the time, said they'd rather see it in 5.7, then a few
> people joined in the discussion and I couldn't reall
On 10/07/2013 08:09 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning Chaps,
I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Also I do not always follow IR
On 7 October 2013 08:29, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Chaps,
>
> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
You could have done us laziers a favor and add the link:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/a
hi,
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Chaps,
>
> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Also I do not always follow IRC discussions. What is the reasoning
behi
hi!
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning Chaps,
>
> I have opened the vote on anonymous classes, following on from
> conversations had in IRC, we have the option to postpone this until 5.7 ...
Can you move it to the voting phase section please?
--
Pierre
@pier
28 matches
Mail list logo
