While I think long-term this would be a beneficial change I think in
the short term it's quite a hurdle. There is definitely code out there
relying on this behavior and changing it will result in the worst BC
case: it will not fail in any way but will instead act differently.
I definitely want to
On 14/12/2014 00:53, Leon Sorokin wrote:
Respectfully,
PHP's 'Unexpected behavior is not a bug' stance is pretty infuriating
[...]
Documentation of unexpected behavior does not make something 'not a bug'.
Whether or not this particular bug is fixable, I do agree with this:
"we're not going
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Leon Sorokin wrote:
>
> Respectfully,
>
> PHP's 'Unexpected behavior is not a bug' stance is pretty infuriating; the
> utterly ridiculous T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM argument comes to mind.
>
> > It is not a bug, as the issue's status says: "Not a bug".
>
> I can unders
Respectfully,
PHP's 'Unexpected behavior is not a bug' stance is pretty infuriating;
the utterly ridiculous T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM argument comes to mind.
> It is not a bug, as the issue's status says: "Not a bug".
I can understand why this would have been a 'wontfix' for versions
pre-7.0. H
I wonder how many people use ternary operators in an associative context.
My suspicion is that little of those that do really intend PHP
associativity.
But it'd need quite a parser to detect the affected usage.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: htt
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Leon Sorokin wrote:
> I was wondering if 7.0 could be the version to fix the long-standing
> incorrect ternary associativity bug in PHP [1].
It is not a bug, as the issue's status says: "Not a bug".
> This seems especially worthy of reconsideration since the Null
> Coalesc
Hey Leon,
> On 13 Dec 2014, at 22:45, Leon Sorokin wrote:
>
> I was wondering if 7.0 could be the version to fix the long-standing
> incorrect ternary associativity bug in PHP [1]. This seems especially worthy
> of reconsideration since the Null Coalesce RFC has been accepted and merged
> [2]
Hi guys,
I was wondering if 7.0 could be the version to fix the long-standing
incorrect ternary associativity bug in PHP [1]. This seems especially
worthy of reconsideration since the Null Coalesce RFC has been accepted
and merged [2] with the correct associativity [3].
The major version cha
On 13/12/14 08:57, Markus Fischer wrote:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/unicode_escape
>> >
>> > Voting starts today (2014-12-08) and ends in 10 days’ time (2014-12-18).
> The RFC is really a good writeup, very much appreciated.
>
> I've voted no because I'm not entirely convinced the current approa
On 09.12.14 00:51, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> I’m opening voting on the Unicode Codepoint Escape Syntax RFC. There’s been
> some discussion in the last two weeks since I introduced the RFC, but there’s
> nothing left which I feel needs changing. For the character name syntax
> sug
On Dec 13, 2014 2:19 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
> Levi, Andrea, Adam, and others that suggested we can do 5.7 in parallel
> while sticking to the 7.0 timeline:
>
> 1. I was replying to Julien. Julien said in at least 3 different places
in
> his email that if we do 5.7, we'll clearly not be doing
11 matches
Mail list logo
