Why not just add structs at this point? It's almost like we don't want to
acknowledge that structs are a thing.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 3:29 PM, Rob Landers wrote:
> File-private, in my mind, is different; such as when the classes are
> distinctly unrelated with respect to each other, but nobody else should
> be able to instantiate or use the private class. It is like it doesn't
> exist outside that fil
On 26.03.2025 at 01:13, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 5:11 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote:
>
>> Derick also granted you the corresponding karma for your wiki account.
>
> How can I check if this went through? I don't see any new option to vote on
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-inte
On 3/25/25 19:13, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 5:11 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote:
Hi Daniel
Derick also granted you the corresponding karma for your wiki account.
How can I check if this went through? I don't see any new option to vote on
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-interf
On 3/24/25 13:33, Daniel Scherzer wrote:
Hi internals,
I'd like to start the discussion for a new RFC about allowing final
promoted properties. You can see some preliminary discussion at <
https://externals.io/message/126475>, but this is now an official
RFC.
* RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 23:20, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>
>
> On 25 March 2025 21:23:48 GMT, Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> >> If we didn't have "protected", would you ask the same about "protected
> >> private"? "fileprivate" would be just another access level, not something
> >> you'd combine
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 5:11 PM Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Hi Daniel
>
> Derick also granted you the corresponding karma for your wiki account.
>
How can I check if this went through? I don't see any new option to vote on
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-interfaces.
-Daniel
> On Mar 25, 2025, at 4:06 PM, Dennis Snell wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 25, 2025, at 3:23 PM, Máté Kocsis wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Dennis,
>>
>>
>>> I am myself also a bit lost on the countless names that I tried out in the
>>> implementation, but I think I had toHumanFriendlyString() and
>>>
On 3/14/25 03:09, Juris Evertovskis wrote:
Hello,
I've opened the vote on the Optional interfaces RFC.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optional-interfaces
Implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/17288
Discussion: https://externals.io/message/126185
The voting will be closed on 2025-03-2
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 6:59 AM, Rob Landers wrote:
>> When I say module scope, I'm referring to something along the lines that
>> Arnaud and I were exploring a while back. tldr, "cluster of files with a
>> common namespace root, which can get loaded together." It was mostly about
>> perform
On 3/25/2025 4:11 PM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
Writing coalesce($foo, 0) or ($foo ?? 0) is a small cost when writing the code
to save cost every time anyone reads it.
I see, part of the concern is just avoiding implicit type coercion.
Yes, that would be an understandable reason to requir
Hi Dennis,
I am myself also a bit lost on the countless names that I tried out in the
> implementation, but I think I had toHumanFriendlyString() and
> toDisplayFriendlyString() methods at some point. These then ended up being
> toString() and toDisplayString() after some iterations. I would be ok
On 25 March 2025 21:23:48 GMT, Rob Landers wrote:
>
>> If we didn't have "protected", would you ask the same about "protected
>> private"? "fileprivate" would be just another access level, not something
>> you'd combine with existing ones.
>
>Actually, probably yes :) Mostly just to ask for c
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 22:05, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>
>
> On 25 March 2025 20:29:16 GMT, Rob Landers wrote:
> > Personally, I'd feel that file-private should be kept as simple as possible
> > and limit it to "top-level" things, but that doesn't necessarily have to be
> > the case. I
On 25 March 2025 18:14:21 GMT, Daniel Scherzer
wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:01 AM Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
>wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think the language should pretend to support something that it
>> doesn't
>>
>
>I don't see what the pretending is here - the engine supports declaring
>that a
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, at 15:59, Calvin Buckley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's time to start the process of finding and electing RMs for the next
> minor PHP release.
>
> We are looking for three souls to take on this role. Whomsoever is elected
> will be guided and helped by the current, as well as pr
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 19:51, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 6:59 AM, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> >> When I say module scope, I'm referring to something along the lines that
> >> Arnaud and I were exploring a while back. tldr, "cluster of files with a
> >> common namespace root,
On 25 March 2025 16:42:45 GMT, Robert Chapin wrote:
>On 3/25/2025 4:45 AM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>> The implied default in the first is 'off', but in the second it's 'on'.
>I thought the implied default was null.
By "implied", I'm talking about the observed behaviour: if you give it n
Hi,
I’d be happy to volunteer as the senior RM if no one else steps forward.
Pierrick
Le ven. 14 mars 2025, à 16 h 23, Gunnard Engebreth a
écrit :
>
> On 3/13/25 11:12 AM, Calvin Buckley wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2025, at 11:59 AM, Calvin Buckley wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> It's time to start t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:01 AM Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]
wrote:
>
> I don't think the language should pretend to support something that it
> doesn't
>
I don't see what the pretending is here - the engine supports declaring
that a method must accept a parameter but makes no promises about the type
On 3/25/2025 4:45 AM, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
My point is that because null is not going to be coerced by the language to
either 'on' nor 'off', there's an implied default depending how you write the
expression.
That kind of user mistake is hard for me to wrap my mind around. I
don't exp
I already have GitHub access.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 5:12 PM Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025, at 3:47 AM, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2025, at 16:17, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> >> I've been following this thread with interest, and at the moment I'm
> >> honestly undecided. I certainly see the use
> At the language abstraction level, we can say that spawn performs a
single operation: it creates an execution context. In this case, the *execution
context* is a low-level term that refers to the combination of processor
register states and the call stack (as well as the state of the Zend
engine)
On 25 March 2025 05:53:30 GMT, Robert Chapin wrote:
>I may have over-simplified the examples. Comparing $input === 'yes' will have
>the same result whether $input is null or 'none' or an empty string. So not
>implying a result type, just want to compare a literal or other variable to
>$in
Hi Paul,
## Rowbot
>
> (None of the classes are readonly or final; these look to hew closely to
> the WHATWG-URL spec.)
>
> A BasicURLParser class:
>
> - affords relative parsing capability and an option parameter for the
> target URLRecord
> - returns a URLRecord
>
> A URLRecord class:
>
> - publ
26 matches
Mail list logo
