On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> assert_require_*()
I mean filter_require_*(), of course...
Anyway, I think I finished proposed implementation.
I would like to start the vote from 8/10.
If you have any concerns, please let me know.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/add_validate_fu
AFAICT, to make this change, I'd have to modify:
ZEND_API ZEND_COLD void zend_internal_type_error(zend_bool throw_exception,
const char *format, ...) /* {{{ */
To be:
ZEND_API ZEND_COLD void zend_internal_type_error(zend_bool throw_exception,
zend_class_entry *zend_error, const char *format, …)
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Lauri Kenttä
wrote:
> On 2016-08-06 17:47, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. What are your thoughts on the following cost factors?
>>
>> time_cost = 3
>> memory_cost = 12
>> threads = 1
>>
>> The reference library provides a CLI program where these va
On 8/5/16, 2:20 PM, "Charles R. Portwood II"
wrote:
>It breaks the API in the interim between this RFC and a potential future
>one. The $options parameter for both password_hash and
>password_needs_rehash is optional. Making it required for one algorithm
>but not another changes the API's for bot
On 2016-08-06 17:47, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
Absolutely. What are your thoughts on the following cost factors?
time_cost = 3
memory_cost = 12
threads = 1
The reference library provides a CLI program where these values are
listed. A memory_cost factor of 12 would be 4 MiB.
Looks like the
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Niklas Keller wrote:
> 2016-08-05 22:51 GMT+02:00 Lauri Kenttä :
>
>> On 2016-08-05 21:20, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
>>>
I can understand an argument that it's too much to expect a user to
>>
Hi Xinchen,
There is still a way we could make this work, if we'd simply check for nNumUsed
== nNumOfElements as well. Because a packed array with nNumUsed equal to
nNumOfElements must be consecutively indexed from zero onward without any gaps
(no IS_UNDEF).
I therefore propose to change array
Hi!
> From: m...@kelunik.com>
> I don't like "ArgumentError", how about "WrongArgumentCountError"? Maybe
> also "WrongArgumentsError".
I'd favour simply ArgumentCountError. No need to prepend a "wrong" to theerror
class name - we can already guess it's wrong because it has resulted inan error
:
2016-08-05 22:51 GMT+02:00 Lauri Kenttä :
> On 2016-08-05 21:20, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Tom Worster wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can understand an argument that it's too much to expect a user to
>>> provide an options array when using Argon2. But I don't unders
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I know this is a little late in the process, but it's something I've
>>> noticed while prepping some conten
2016-08-06 11:53 GMT+02:00 Davey Shafik :
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> I know this is a little late in the process, but it's something I've
> >> noticed while prepping some content arou
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I know this is a little late in the process, but it's something I've
>> noticed while prepping some content around 7.1.
>>
>> This RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_a
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I know this is a little late in the process, but it's something I've
> noticed while prepping some content around 7.1.
>
> This RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/too_few_args
>
> Passed, and has been implemented, but I feel that throw
Dmitry,
I've tried to implement this myself, and it seems to work fine, but I end
up with some weird (unrelated?) test failures after:
https://github.com/php/php-src/compare/master...dshafik:too-few-args-exception
Example test failure:
DIFF
001+ Warning: file_get_contents(http:/
Morning all,
Good idea, +1 for just doing it ...
Cheers
Joe
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> I don't see a big problem accepting this. The change is really minor, and
> makes sense.
>
> Dmitry.
>
> On Aug 6, 2016 5:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I know this
I don't see a big problem accepting this. The change is really minor, and makes
sense.
Dmitry.
On Aug 6, 2016 5:26 AM, Davey Shafik wrote:
Hey all,
I know this is a little late in the process, but it's something I've noticed
while prepping some content around 7.1.
This RFC: https://wiki.php.
16 matches
Mail list logo
