Hi!
As you probably know, we've been running PHP fuzzing under Google's
OSS-Fuzz[1] project for a while now (and found and fixed some bugs due
to it).
This has been enabled by the PHP fuzzing API SAPI[2] which currently
lives in a separate repository. Since the setup is working pretty well
for a
Hi!
>> I look at the success of how strict types was brought in, in a way
> It was a classic compromise that neither side of the debate hated,
> but neither really loved either, and the subtleties of how each mode
> works are likely to be sources of confusion for years to come. I am
> far from co
On 28 July 2019 18:56:24 BST, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>I look at the success of how strict types was brought in, in a way
>that allowed for zero breaking changes for existing code, and think it
>was a massively successful way of improving the language without
>causing problems.
I think it's a) very ea
Hi!
> I do work with code like that: the teams maintaining these codebases are
> actively removing by-ref calls when they encounter them.
You seem to be intent on equating your personal experience with needs of
every PHP developer on the planet. I can't prevent that but I can say
that this exper
Hi!
> As we've seen with the declare for strict types, libraries that want
> to have strict mode, and libraries that want to have more type
> juggling, are perfectly fine to live alongside each other, and can be
> used just fine.
You are assuming all the code is neatly organized in "libraries" th
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:06 PM Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Nah, by-ref is pretty much avoided in OSS packages, but we can surely
> > survey the ecosystem to verify this.
>
> I literally work with code that uses references every day. So may be you
> haven't encountered it but the attitu
Hi!
> Nah, by-ref is pretty much avoided in OSS packages, but we can surely
> survey the ecosystem to verify this.
I literally work with code that uses references every day. So may be you
haven't encountered it but the attitude of "nah, never happens" I think
is a bit misplaced.
Also please remem
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 04:17, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> We've decided not to do INI options to change language behavior,...
> because they are - especially when applying to more than local
> file - essentially low-grade INI options
I don't agree. What's being proposed are not low-grade INI op
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 04:47 Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I think nowadays it is well known that by-reference passing is to be
> > avoided and I don't see it particularly commonly in user code.
> By-reference
>
> I don't think it's true. It depends on the style of coding, of course,
> but
On 25 July 2019 14:34:07 BST, Nikita Popov wrote:
>Based on the received feedback, I plan to change this proposal from
>being
>"namespace-scoped" to being "directory-scoped" instead. This should
>both
>resolve some of the concerns and make the proposal more flexible: Not
>all
>code sharing the sam
10 matches
Mail list logo
