On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a
> more comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking
> from the current convention. Another secti
> -Original Message-
> From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:z...@zend.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:15 AM
> To: 'Andrea Faulds'; 'Christoph Becker'
> Cc: 'Kris Craig'; 'PHP'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
>
> > Argh, I need some sleep. I'll think about it further an
> Argh, I need some sleep. I'll think about it further and respond in the
morning.
I think we have consensus here!
Zeev
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I want to point out that neither options (6 nor 7) break the our
convention. PHP 6 was a live project that was worked on by many people,
and known as such by many many more; Even though it never reached GA –
there was definitely software named PHP 6. Whether reusing that version
number for somet
On 6 Jul 2014, at 02:04, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>> I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also
>> think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options).
>> However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels
>>
Andrea Faulds wrote:
> I can see Zeev’s point that 7 is the main other option (though I also
> think 6.1, or codenames, are possible though unlikely other options).
> However, I don’t want to call a 50%+1 6/7 vote because it just feels
> like too narrow of a majority. I suppose if that 6 yes/no vo
On 6 Jul 2014, at 01:29, Kris Craig wrote:
> I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more
> comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the
> current convention. Another section could be created to outline the other
> side. What we
I would, however, recommend that Andrea take Zeev's input and create a more
comprehensive section outlining his arguments in favor of breaking from the
current convention. Another section could be created to outline the other
side. What we don't want is a situation where Zeev feels compelled to
w
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > I think there's some confusion here.
> >
> > If the next version of PHP is going to be a major one (which is clearly
> > defined in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess), then I believe
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Faulds [mailto:a...@ajf.me]
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 2:19 AM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Name of Next Release of PHP
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > I think there's some confusion here.
> >
>
On 6 Jul 2014, at 00:05, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I think there's some confusion here.
>
> If the next version of PHP is going to be a major one (which is clearly
> defined in https://wiki.php.net/rfc/releaseprocess), then I believe the
> only two options that were ever raised are PHP 6 and PHP 7.
> I don't want to have a vote with over two choices, I don't think it
would be fair
> (one option could pass without >50% voting for it), and a binary 6/7
choice is
> forcing people's hand. I want it to be simple and straightforward, so
that is why
> it is Yes or No to PHP 6. If people vote no, the
On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:57, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this
> discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much
> better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past.
That’s true. I’ve updated it with
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> First we are working on providing updated numbers using 5.6 vs
> 5.6+patch, to have an actual base reference. Wordpress, Symfony and
> Drupal will be used.
>
> Also, Anthony posted something on IRC which summarizes very well what
> has been sa
Andrea,
While I'm not sure whether this isn't a bit premature to have this
discussion, if we were to have this discussion, the RFC should do a much
better job at summarizing the discussions we already had in the past.
First, it shouldn't be a yes/no for PHP 6, but rather, a 'PHP 6, PHP 7, or
Defe
Good evening,
I am announcing a rather unorthodox RFC.
With the advent of the phpng and uniform variable syntax RFCs, it looks likely
the next major release of PHP, to succeed the 5.x series, may appear relatively
soon. However, unlike with previous releases of PHP, it is not entirely clear
wh
> On July 5, 2014 at 9:05 AM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2014 9:43 AM, "Tjerk Meesters"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Obviously spoke to soon ... what I've written there is basically an ugly
> > `!isset($var)`.
> >
>
> Totally fail to see what is ugly with is set or the difference with
> exists
On Jul 5, 2014 9:43 AM, "Tjerk Meesters"
wrote:
>
> Obviously spoke to soon ... what I've written there is basically an ugly
> `!isset($var)`.
>
Totally fail to see what is ugly with is set or the difference with
exists(). The latter, in the context of php (even more with phpng) makes
little sen
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Tjerk Meesters
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Xen wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> >
>> > For completeness, it is available in Perl and I believe Perl had it
>> >> f
>
>
>> Currently, this is what's available for checking a variable's status
>> without throwing any errors:
>>
>> Variable exists and !== NULL: isset( $var )
>> Variable === NULL or doesn't exist: !isset( $var )
>> Variable == NULL or doesn't exist: empty( $var )
>> Variable exists and != NULL:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Xen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Levi Morrison wrote:
> >
> > For completeness, it is available in Perl and I believe Perl had it
> >> first; not completely sure though.
> >>
> >
> > Okay, I never used Perl.
21 matches
Mail list logo
