On Tue, Feb 4, 2025, at 4:30 PM, Rob Landers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025, at 22:16, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Patterns are deliberately designed as a superset of existing DNF types. You
>> can already have a type of Foo&Bar, so we want the pattern for "instanceof
>> Foo || instanceof Bar" to be
On 2025-02-05 09:49, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
Feature-wise, I have to say I'd keep it strict-always, as both our PRs
implement it. Yes, that means preg_match() wouldn't be able to slot in
transparently. I'm frankly OK with that; hopefully pattern matching can be
extended to a better regex syn
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:15 PM Christoph M. Becker
wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> There is some discussion on a recent bug report[1] about filter_input()
> and related functionality. The bug report had been closed, because this
> functionality has already been added to the general deprecation RFC for
While the filter API wasn't designed with this in mind, the use of
filter_input to get the unmodified data is probably the only good
reason to ever use this API. If possible, it would be better to have
dedicated functions in standard for reading the unmodified input data
and then deprecate this fun
Hi all!
There is some discussion on a recent bug report[1] about filter_input()
and related functionality. The bug report had been closed, because this
functionality has already been added to the general deprecation RFC for
PHP 8.5[2]. Then the OP raised a point regarding the usefulness of
filte
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, at 14:13, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> There is some discussion on a recent bug report[1] about filter_input()
> and related functionality. The bug report had been closed, because this
> functionality has already been added to the general deprecation RFC for
> P
Hi
Am 2025-02-02 15:35, schrieb Rob Landers:
My only concern with the RFC is something a bit silly. If I understand
correctly, this will be a constant expression:
You understood that correctly.
It is an incredibly small inconsistency (imho), but other than that,
ship it.
I wouldn't call it
Hi Mihail
Thanks for your proposal.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 9:24 AM Mihail Liahimov <91lia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon. I would like to create an RFC on the implementation of the
> NOT null assertion operator. Do you think it makes sense to create it? I was
> able to implement the op
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 3:35 PM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> - RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fcc_in_const_expr
> - Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17213
With the two weeks discussion time elapsing later today and given the
feedback we received, we plan to open the vote tomorrow pe
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:10 PM Derick Rethans wrote:
> What's the reason why this emits a warning though, instead of throwing
> an Exception? I'm sure you thought of it, but it would be nice to have
> that consideration mentioned in the RFC.
>
Thank you for the question, I now added the missing
Good afternoon. I would like to create an RFC on the implementation of the
NOT null assertion operator. Do you think it makes sense to create it? I
was able to implement the operator. I've already posted a draft in my
github -
https://github.com/rekmixa/php-src/tree/feature/not_null_assertion_opera
11 matches
Mail list logo
