On 3 Jul 2014, at 18:29, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Either way, I think there should be some sort of warning (probably an E_NOTICE
> or E_WARNING?) when this cast happens implicitly and the number is truncated,
> such as in function calls. I’m tempted to remove this from Open Questions and
> instead
On 6 Jul 2014, at 23:32, Kris Craig wrote:
> Andrea, I would *strongly* recommend that you accept Zeev's offer and make
> him a co-author. You did present at least a partial argument for breaking
> the convention, but I think they do have a valid grievance in that some of
> their arguments a
On 6 Jul 2014, at 23:38, Kris Craig wrote:
> Oh and a quick question: Could you clarify how many voting choices there are
> going to be? The RFC only lists "PHP 6" and "PHP 7", yet it says that a
> "plurality" will be required for a win, which means that there should be at
> least 3 or more
Oh and a quick question: Could you clarify how many voting choices there
are going to be? The RFC only lists "PHP 6" and "PHP 7", yet it says that
a "plurality" will be required for a win, which means that there should be
at least 3 or more choices. A plurality basically means that you got the
m
>
> As such I'd like to coauthor it with you and represent the case for 7.
>
Andrea, I would *strongly* recommend that you accept Zeev's offer and make
him a co-author. You did present at least a partial argument for breaking
the convention, but I think they do have a valid grievance in that some
For my $0.02, as someone who put a fair amount of effort into PHP6 (function
conversions, streams layer, etc...) I would really prefer to not call it PHP6.
Whether not not it was ever released, it was a thing, and phpng (while awesome)
is not that thing.
PHP7 seems the obvious choice, but I'm
On 6 Jul 2014, at 18:37, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I appreciate your change!
>
> As such I'd like to coauthor it with you and represent the case for 7.
You’re welcome to edit the RFC and add a subsection with a case for 7. I’d
appreciate it if you could discuss edits to the existing Rationale wit
> On 6 ביול 2014, at 07:22, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
>
>> On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:23, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>>
>> This RFC attempts to settle the matter once and for all with a straight
>> yes/no vote as to whether the name should be PHP 6. Should it pass, the
>> matter is settled and we actually hav
When you have infinity at your disposal, skipping 6 and taking the
next free number - 7 - makes a whole lot more sense than trying to
rewrite the archives of history (renaming 6 to Old 6).
Similarly, while there are fairly good reasons on why we shouldn't use
6, there aren't any for the next-in-l
On 6 Jul 2014, at 17:46, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 06/07/14 16:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> I think it’s generally clear what’s for the new PHP 6 and what’s for the
>> old; anything from after the old PHP 6 was abandoned must be about a new PHP
>> 6, and anything from before it must be about the
On 06/07/14 16:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> I think it’s generally clear what’s for the new PHP 6 and what’s for the old;
> anything from after the old PHP 6 was abandoned must be about a new PHP 6,
> and anything from before it must be about the old PHP 6. If this RFC were to
> pass with people v
On 6 Jul 2014, at 16:12, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
> It's my first post in this list, and wanted to share my external point of
> view, with a parallel with the MySQL world.
Welcome to PHP! :)
> MySQL 6 was alpha in 2007 and finally was never released.
> So far its name has never been reused (in
Hi,
Le 06/07/2014 03:13, Zeev Suraski a écrit :
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 PH
On 6 Jul 2014, at 14:48, Lester Caine wrote:
> Andrea - Your total disregard for anything other then a a single reason
> related to books is a problem here. While printed /electronic books are
> a part of the problem with the tag PHP6, there are considerable
> additional references to that tag o
On 06/07/14 12:21, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> The RFC has been updated. I’ve backed down and made the vote be 50%+1 with
> the options PHP 6 and PHP 7. Hence only a plurality of votes is needed to win.
>
> Hopefully this should be decisive, unless the number of Yes and No votes
> matches.
Andrea -
On 5 Jul 2014, at 22:23, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> This RFC attempts to settle the matter once and for all with a straight
> yes/no vote as to whether the name should be PHP 6. Should it pass, the
> matter is settled and we actually have a proper name for this fabled “PHP
> NEXT”. Should it fail
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Craig [mailto:kris.cr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 3:22 AM
> To: Xen
> Cc: Levi Morrison; internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] not_null function
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Xen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2014, Levi Morrison wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 10:06 AM
> To: Tjerk Meesters; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] not_null function
>
> On Jul 5, 2014 9:43 AM, "Tjerk Meesters"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Obviously spoke to soon ... what
On 06/07/14 02:13, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I still absolutely think we should bury this until later in the project’s
> lifecycle as our energy **right now** is probably much better spent
> elsewhere.
The problem with that statement is just how do you identify what
material one is looking at relates
19 matches
Mail list logo
