On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:46 PM Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> I would like to vote to "yes".
> However, RFC does not have benchmark result. Do you have some results?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohg...@ohgaki.net
>
>
I have not run a benchmark on the current implementation but would be happy
t
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> Why should we have 2 additional alphas? In my opinion, a single
> additional alpha is sufficient, and it is really important not to add
> yet further features.
>
Because in the best case scenario (with a single extra alpha), the RFC
is
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:26 AM Dustin Wheeler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've let this RFC linger for a long time and finally wrapped up the
> remaining administrative items to put it to vote. This has been
> discussed a few times in the past:
>
> https://externals.io/message/89732
> https://externals.i
> -Original Message-
> From: p...@golemon.com [mailto:p...@golemon.com] On Behalf Of Sara
> Golemon
> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:36 PM
> To: Christoph M. Becker
> Cc: Nikita Popov ; s...@php.net; Björn Larsson
> ; Dan Ackroyd ;
> Stanislav Malyshev ; Marco Pivetta
> ; PHP internals
> S
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:09 PM Niklas Keller wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> could you please fix the creation date in the RFC? It lists
> 2018-06-27, which would mean that the minimum discussion period
> wouldn't be over, yet, but it's actually been created somewhen last
> year.
>
Ugh, sorry about that! In
Hi,
This was brought up in the thread for the typed properties RFC, but I'd
like to split off this discussion.
Before talking about solutions, can the people who need this first outline
what functionality is needed and what it is needed for (and maybe what
workarounds you currently use). E.g. do
On 06/07/2018 21:57, Nicolas Grekas wrote:
if ((new ReflectionReference($array[$key]))->getRefcount() > 2) {
I just realized that this interface would suffer from a significant
drawback: it would trigger COW when iterating over immutable arrays,
defeating the shared-memory optimization provide
Hey,
could you please fix the creation date in the RFC? It lists
2018-06-27, which would mean that the minimum discussion period
wouldn't be over, yet, but it's actually been created somewhen last
year.
Regards, Niklas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visi
Hi Internals.
To explain my vote, I'm voting no for pretty much the same reasons I
listed before, http://news.php.net/php.internals/90352
The short version of which is:
* 'friendship' is not a good solution for allowing restricted access
to some methods.
* Restricting access to some methods doe
I do not disagree, just want to make an observation.
If multiple properties or array keys reference the same instance of
\stdClass, there will be multiple instances with identical values after a
round-trip with var_export() + eval().
This is not necessarily a problem, just something to be aware of
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> On 05.07.2018 at 00:20, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
>
> > Den tor. 5. jul. 2018 kl. 00.15 skrev Yasuo Ohgaki :
> >
> >> Since the issue is incompatibility between current "continue" and
> "break",
> >> how about provide a tool replace
Den lør. 7. jul. 2018 kl. 10.47 skrev Björn Larsson :
> I leave this to the judgement of the RMs. I have no opinion myself,
> besides I think it's a good idea to keep the GA date.
I agree, and an additional few weeks will make the release date very
close to the holidays, I think late November/earl
On 7/6/2018 9:35 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
It's up to a combination of internals@ opinion, and RM best-judgement.
I for one, see no issue with pushing FF out (we can do an alpha4, even
an alpha5). On the other end we have the option of reducing the
number of RCs, or pushing GA by the same delay.
13 matches
Mail list logo
