Morning internals,
If Davey wants another person, that could be me.
Cheers
Joe
On 24 Apr 2016 01:29, "Davey Shafik" wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Anatol Belski
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Davey,
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: m...@daveyshafik.com [mailto:m...@daveyshafik.c
On 04/23/2016 08:34 PM, Marcio Almada wrote:
> hi!
>
> From: Mathieu Rochette
>> Date: 2016-04-23 12:44 GMT-04:00
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types
>>
>>
>> On 04/22/2016 06:12 AM, Marcio Almada wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> We just completed the draft for the "Callable Types" R
Hi Davey,
Thanks for your answer. I still have small projects on my pipeline that I
want to finish but I'll start looking at libnghttp2 and if I get some time
I'll recontact you to maybe help you on remaining tasks :-) Do you have
specifics stuffs that you would like me to look at ?
About the pat
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Anatol Belski
wrote:
> Hi Davey,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: m...@daveyshafik.com [mailto:m...@daveyshafik.com] On Behalf Of Davey
> > Shafik
> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 5:03 AM
> > To: Julien Pauli
> > Cc: Scott Arciszewski ; Anatol Belski ;
Hi Pierrick,
This should be in master for 7.1, alongside my RFC'ed patch for server push
support.
You emailed me directly about the aforementioned patch so I'll just respond
here as it's relevant:
The patch should hit in 7.1 but it has been requested that tests be added —
and we can't add tests
The <<>> syntax comes with the problem that previous versions cannot ignore it
on parsing.
So poeple write new frameworks for 7.0 which cannot be parsed in 5.x, then they
write new frameworks for 7.1 which cannot be parsed with 7.0 and 5.x and so on.
For companies staying on Linux distributions w
If I was a popular framework creator, this wouldn't stop me. I would
release two packages : one for 7.0, another one for 7.1. And the 7.0 one
would be the 7.1 one that has been processed through a script to remove
any <<>> syntax, or to transform it (if pre/post attributes instructions
were
Hi Dimitry,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> I would like to present an RFC proposing support for native annotation.
>
> The naming, syntax and behavior are mostly influenced by HHVM Hack, but not
> exactly the same.
>
> The most interesting difference is an ability to use
Hi internals,
I took some time to add some easy to implement new "features" that were
implemented in libcurl but missing in ext/curl. Most of them are just
exposing a new constant in ext/curl and dispatched in the curl_setopt
function. I created a branch over master but the patch is applicable
wit
hi!
From: Mathieu Rochette
> Date: 2016-04-23 12:44 GMT-04:00
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types
>
>
> On 04/22/2016 06:12 AM, Marcio Almada wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> We just completed the draft for the "Callable Types" RFC. This RFC has been
> recently mentioned during other type
Redirecting this to the list as this message was sent privately probably by
accident :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mathieu Rochette
Date: 2016-04-23 12:44 GMT-04:00
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV][RFC] Callable Types
To: Marcio Almada
On 04/22/2016 06:12 AM, Marcio Almada wrote:
Hel
Hi Davey,
> -Original Message-
> From: m...@daveyshafik.com [mailto:m...@daveyshafik.com] On Behalf Of Davey
> Shafik
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 5:03 AM
> To: Julien Pauli
> Cc: Scott Arciszewski ; Anatol Belski ;
> PHP internals ; Ferenc Kovacs ;
> Stanislav Malyshev
> Subject: Re:
I see. So it's the combination of not erroring when more parameters are
passed than a function accepts, and permitting methods to add extra
optional parameters that is wrong. So without the former being
fix/deprecated, the correct thing to do is to disallow extra optional
params. Makes sense.
Are
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Fleshgrinder
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/2016 11:42 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
> >> > IMHO, the point of Optional types is the intention,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/2016 11:42 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
>> > IMHO, the point of Optional types is the intention, if you get an
>> > Option from a method, you have to deal with a None b
Hi Richard,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 11:42 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
> > IMHO, the point of Optional types is the intention, if you get an
> > Option from a method, you have to deal with a None branch. Of course
> > you can just unwrap and go on, but it's a
On 4/22/2016 4:15 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> All that said, I love the proposal overall, and I can't wait to
> propose builtin annotations like <<__Memoize>>, <<__Mock>>, and
> similar.
>
I'd rather see these two functionalities added as modifiers at the
language level instead since they change th
+1 for the basic idea, however, I have various remarks.
The RFC text is hard to read and contains many grammatical mistakes. How
could one help you here?
I think that the Hack name attributes is unintelligible and annotations
would be much clearer to any audience. Simply because the name is very
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:18:56 +0300, Dan Ackroyd
wrote:
On 22 April 2016 at 05:12, Marcio Almada wrote:
Hello everyone,
We just completed the draft for the "Callable Types" RFC.
There seems to be one thing missing from the RFC; please could you add
an example where the parameter and retur
On 4/22/2016 11:42 AM, Quim Calpe wrote:
> IMHO, the point of Optional types is the intention, if you get an
> Option from a method, you have to deal with a None branch. Of course
> you can just unwrap and go on, but it's a developer decision to do that,
> not an oversight as using a Foo|null (or ?
On 22 April 2016 at 05:12, Marcio Almada wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We just completed the draft for the "Callable Types" RFC.
There seems to be one thing missing from the RFC; please could you add
an example where the parameter and return types are also 'typed'
callables?
Presumably it would l
On 04/22/2016 02:46 PM, Thomas Punt wrote:
Hi Dmitry!
Hi,
I would like to present an RFC proposing support for native annotation.
The naming, syntax and behavior are mostly influenced by HHVM Hack, but not
exactly the same.
The most interesting difference is an ability to use arbitrary P
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:46:38 +0300, Jesse Schalken
wrote:
This is great. The gaps in PHP's type annotations are slowly being
filled.
:)
Are the rules for compatibility between callables the same rules for
compatibility between methods in classes/interfaces? Because presently,
this is allow
This is great. The gaps in PHP's type annotations are slowly being filled.
:)
Are the rules for compatibility between callables the same rules for
compatibility between methods in classes/interfaces? Because presently,
this is allowed:
interface Test {
public function testMethod();
}
functio
24 matches
Mail list logo
