On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 11:20 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>>>
>>
>>
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your hard work on anonymous classes.
I voted no because I feel it's just adding more and more ways to achieve
similar results and the syntax is just more sugary fluff to allow people to
do things the wrong way.
We've had a lot of new features in recent versions, i.e: traits, s
On 8 October 2013 06:46, Michael Wallner wrote:
> I was wondering how we are supposed to handle NEWS entries when a fix
> goes into both branches, PHP-5.4 and 5.5. IIRC we used to add the BFN
> only to the lowest numbered branch, but then again that was at times
> we had mostly onle one stable rel
> I have voted no based on the lack of support for
>> serialization/unserialization, and I think that we agreed that without
>> somehow naming the class, we can't support that, and having a name would
>> defeat the purpose of this feature.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to nested classes though.
>>
>>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 06:46, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> I was wondering how we are supposed to handle NEWS entries when a fix
>> goes into both branches, PHP-5.4 and 5.5. IIRC we used to add the BFN
>> only to the lowest numbered branch, but then ag
> Thanks for your feedback! I fixed NEWS for the upcoming releases.
> Please let us have an eye on it in the future!
Okay -- looking at NEWS.GIT-RULES it actually says the opposite:
2. All news updates intended for public viewing, such as new features,
bug fixes, improvements, etc., should
On 09/10/13 07:39, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Gordon Oheim wrote:
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
For the lazy folks, this is the RFC
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Gordon Oheim wrote:
> 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
>
For the lazy folks, this is the RFC Gordon is talking about:
https://w
I quite like the shortened constructors. You did a good job of explaining
how it it would work in a variety of situations and I have no questions on
the behavior of the basic proposal.
I don't like the Alternate Syntax: the difference between the current
behavior and the proposed is triggered only
On 9 October 2013 10:06, Michael Wallner wrote:
> Commit:5f41cb18beb9437df73c382b5a9689d43c357628
> Author:Michael Wallner Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:06:45
> +0200
> Parents: 29d5ff75d5ac076eb0b4623e1a29eb33bb65393a
> 5ffaf95d3f6d8634cdc218ea6bfdb24c7887148c
> Branches: master
>
> Li
10 matches
Mail list logo