On 11/3/16 2:58 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> I think it would be bad to remove these functions and force users to
>> wrap arrays with ArrayIterator, just to manually iterate an array. After
>> spending a little time looking through how these functions are being
>> used in frameworks and libraries, r
> I think it would be bad to remove these functions and force users to
> wrap arrays with ArrayIterator, just to manually iterate an array. After
> spending a little time looking through how these functions are being
> used in frameworks and libraries, removing them seems like it will cause
> more
Thank you everyone for your feedback.
Nikita's post about wrapping the array with an ArrayIterator provides
the best approach to allow an array or Traversable to be used. This will
also provide the greatest backwards compatible usage for those of us
writing user code that would need to be compatib
Thanks everyone for your responses.
It has not taken long to find situations where this idea starts to fall apart.
For example, in the case of strpos, I would hope for the return value, but in
other cases I would want the the original input if the output is not false.
That makes this feature pr
Hi,
Can we change openssl_public_encrypt() and openssl_private_decrypt() from
defaulting to PKCS1v1.5 padding, in favor of defaulting to OAEP?
I'll create an RFC for this later. It will just prevent a lot of issues.
To wit:
- https://framework.zend.com/security/advisory/ZF2015-10
-
https://gith
> Yes I have but I would like it to return ($n1/$n2) or whatever this input is,
> without repeating it again.
But it should do exactly that, except for a falsy return (eg. zero,
empty, null, false) - note INFINITY is a truth value, so 10/0, for
instance, will return INF instead of "else value".
F
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Antony D'Andrea <
contac...@antonydandrea.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to propose a new feature that is as clean as this but is a
> slightly different use case. This would require a new operator (up for
> discussion, but an early idea is "?!") For example:
>
>
You have tried the ?: operator?
echo !is_infinite($n1/$n2) ?: 0;
It should returns true or 0, for this case.
2016-11-03 13:02 GMT-02:00 Antony D'Andrea :
> Hi all,
>
> First off, this is my first time e-mailing internals or even thinking about
> submitting RFC. Please forgive me if I fail t
Hi all,
First off, this is my first time e-mailing internals or even thinking about
submitting RFC. Please forgive me if I fail to follow some kind of convention.
In PHP 7.0, we were given the Null Coalesce operator. For example:
echo $array['key']??"key is not set"
would be the same as
Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-11-03 06:25:16+02:00
commit: 624409b
previous commit:c71ab72
revision date: 2016-11-02 12:12:25+08:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Benjamin Coutu wrote:
> The type qualifier is just copy paste relic. We'd of course have to remove
> const form the signature (and the function body) for this to work. Quickly
> looking at zend_memrchr's call sites I don't see that it would be a huge
> issue to mod
The type qualifier is just copy paste relic. We'd of course have to remove
const form the signature (and the function body) for this to work. Quickly
looking at zend_memrchr's call sites I don't see that it would be a huge issue
to modify that or am I missing something?
== Original ===
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Benjamin Coutu wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I think there are a few improvements that we could make to some fundamental
> algorithms.
> I'd like to point out one particular for now, to see if there is any interest
> in these kind of low level code optimizations fr
Hello everyone,
I think there are a few improvements that we could make to some fundamental
algorithms.
I'd like to point out one particular for now, to see if there is any interest
in these kind of low level code optimizations from the community.
Please consider the following code snippet extr
Hi,
On 24/10/2016 07:16, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> c. Get some specific people to volunteer to review patches in security
> repo regularly - how? Any takers?
I'd be happy to help with reviewing and also setting up a private C.I.
to build and run the test suite regularly, if you think that's a g
15 matches
Mail list logo
